ese ere} a i! } ἢ Ss ear ee τος - - Seas ἐν ἧς τας Ὡς HA) eee ΤΟΥ, ΗΝ ij Vai t eee ξ athe ait els ἢ Δ ΠΥ ΣῊ ἐπ εὐ Ἷ i j ΡΣ ᾿ ᾿ r ἢ ΠΝ 4 γ᾽ ᾿ } idee ’ Padi ᾿ 0) ΐ I iy j } ! ͵ ᾽ W ‘ 4 f ie ιν yes ; CPS iw Si eee i ͵ ) zee ΝΠ hata wa ᾿ ῃ ἡ ἘΝῚ ύρε iS Wal ΤΗΝ ! nay , PUM she ΟΝΗ : Η ἐλ ΜᾺ Dats Π Ἦν id Maa ; ᾿ Ἵ Ἕ ἢ { “| 5 7 3 et | ε ‘ t Lis ne! : ΓΕ ͵ ἐπ ry ΓΝ β ith) ς Ἢ Ὶ ἈΦΡῸ tt Ν ΑΝ ΜΠ MOH ELT EA IEE: M Pay at ἡ 40.) " ce Ι ἐν " ͵ ΠΡ ἢ) ΓΙ / ἢ } δ “ἢ: J j ) Ἵ ἢ Η 1 Wi ὙΠ ὙΕ ἘΠ. ia ; eae pets , nay Ι 14) 4 Lae dee ‘ ! ᾿ far} ΠΝ , ἥ Ἱ 4” URAC RIP er) ΤΣ: nih Vay Ἵ is ἡ ἡ aye ΑΨ ate oi ᾿ i : fot Dil hee bap ha thi oat ᾿ / 4 ΗΜ, ASL ER dh fi εὐ εὐ ὁ Mtge Ie ‘ τ κα iM TREC LOE DA 34 [dsb AbA ee est ye "γ᾽ rd 4 , } ' ’ id Π {7 ι Π 4 4 ue Ἦ Ἧ Ἧ ' Weleda aL baked ΠΥ νι ἢ Πυ Ἵ ΓΗ th ΔΙ δὴ ] ἥ ἐν Rian ene 1! PTI nu EG ἐν ιν NBN ITF | bcp 4.9 j {: tye ent Nd ᾿ ͵ ΤΥ 4. ᾿ #344 i j ͵ be bhi hee ne τ ὙΠ) ΠΗ Μῃ ᾿ ὅν} ‘ yt ἢ 2. a q| aie vp wy) ‘ ἢ " j ν bibl ple μ "Ὦ ! gud i Sh A ene he ne) Ay ' ! ᾿ 4 fu 4 4 ΓΨ» eit Pcl eee ὁ i ΓῚ ‘ wil ἢ his ri ᾿ eee | ii } 1 ΠΡ ΓΙ Ϊ τ "ἢ Ὁ) iat) ‘ 1 pie {1}. Ἷ Π v4 41} pitied ! ἘΠῚ ' Boa ' " Ἰ | efit ͵ ΤΠ]: ΠΥ ΤΥ ἐν: he , tyre ΣΝ ἡ τὶ εν ; sq ditenaly RiP a | } ᾿ ’ t ΓΗ Vide μὲ H + Ue 8 «8 aed ' {ΠῚ τ \ ῃ ὙΠ Ὁ ΗΝ, εν ἢ 8 ἢ ἡ is) a Pe Ey a et aes Re ert AL nats ‘os , ΣΝ ᾿ Oy ae Vn tit ROR 4 ΠῚ ἡ ENE Bey i ΣΙ 1 *t tf ΠῚ ) fae ΤΥ ite e reese mete Pee gy wad ae PUL pa a at Had ve ia ge aies Ἢ ἢ ΠΥ ΜΗ "δ 4186) Ἵ ὁ ἀνε αὐ, 1} ν hel aiken 176% ΔῊ {hss py ᾿ τι Ὧν meat)? LF ee ὶ aie δὰ Mi Ρ , hey " il THM f Ἵ Ar, i ve he Ἴ ἡ τί λ Ι Φ Nat ‘ , tne 4 1 | i 3 ᾿ ν ! ι , ἢ " i + } 4 ies » Ϊ me PACU a's 4 ἢ Fe - ΐ τῇ ΩΝ Seeds HELA >» hal ) γ ' AS he ‘ ἡ ν Neem “ἌἸἌἮ᾿4ΦἉ ‘ : ἌΣ ΓΑ ,, ran 1 a Ὑ1) Bi ; eM Ἄχ. ἐδ ΠΝ δ᾽ i i Re Hh i ‘i Sah THE GREEK TESTAMENT. VOL. IL. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS. ret ekg. 4 er ‘ ‘ ἃ . , tas ον toh yes ry ee wre =. ae = 45. ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ κυρ ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη. — - —_ ary at Pring, t) THE Vm τ be τ ΄ ΟΝ aise ise GREEK TESTAMENT) WITH A CRITICALLY REVISED TEXT: A DIGEST OF VARIOUS READINGS: MARGINAL REFERENCES TO VERBAL AND IDIOMATIC USAGE: PROLEGOMENA: AND A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY FOR THE USE OF THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS AND MINISTERS BY HENRY ALFORD, DD. LATE DEAN OF CANTERBURY IN FOUR VOLUMES VO. Et CONTAINING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS NEW IMPRESSION LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CoO. 89 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK AND BOMBAY DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. Cambritge “ 1899 ΝΘ i} Rhein ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. In this Edition the Digest has been revised with the help of Tischendorf’s 8th Edition of the Greek Testament. Some correc- tions and additions have also been made to the notes, mainly from Dean Alford’s ‘‘ New Testament for English Readers.” The new matter has been enclosed, as far as seemed practicable, within square brackets. November, 1876. ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SIXTH EDITION. ΤῊΣ Fourth Edition of my Second Volume passed under entire and careful revision as regards, 1. the critical arrangement of the text, and 2. the body of references. Both these labours were carried on under my own superintendence by my Secretaries; the former, including the re-writing of the Digest of various readings, and of that part of the Prolegomena which treats of the Apparatus Criticus, by the Rev. A. W. Grafton, now Vice-Principal of the Theological College at Wells: the latter, by the Rev. R. Hake, Minor Canon of Canterbury. The alterations in the notes were chiefly those which were rendered necessary vi ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SIXTH EDITION. by the more complete conformation of the text to the testimony of our most ancient Manuscripts and Versions. In the Fifth Edition, the Codex Sinaiticus was collated throughout, and in certain doubtful passages of the text its testimony decided the reading. The references were somewhat modified, principally with a view to render each volume independent in itself, and prevent constant cross reference to the others. In this Sixth Edition, the Codex Porphyrianus (P) has been collated (from Tischendorf’s Edition) for the Acts of the Apostles: and its readings, and those of the cursive ms. 47 have been inserted (from Tregelles) in the Digest, throughout 1 and 2 Corinthians. My thanks are due to P. E. Pusey, Esq., for additional notices and corrections of the readings found in Cyril of Alexandria, and in the Syriac Versions. DEANERY, CANTERBURY, January 2, 1871. CONTENTS OF THE PROLEGOMENA. CHAPTER IL OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. SECTION I. 11. 1Π1. IV. Υ: ΥΙ. Its Authorship . Its Sources For what Readers ad ΝΕ πἰοῦ Object = was ἘΠῚ At what Time and Place it was written Genuineness and State of the Text Chronology . ore CHAPTER IL. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. . Its Authorship and Integrity . For what Readers it was written : Ἃ : : . With what Object it was written =. i . ‘ ; δ . At what Time and Place it was written . Language and Style CHAPTER III. OF THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. . Its Autnorship and Integrity. » For what Readers it was written . With what Object it was written . Of the Number of Epistles written by Paul to the Cor ΓΗ . . Of the Number of Visits made by Paul to the Corinthians . At what Place and Time this eae was written - Matter and Style - . : . ἃ CONTENTS OF THE PROLEGOMENA. Vili CHAPTER IV. OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. BECEION . Its Authorship and Integrity 1. Circumstances, Place, and Time of Writing III. Matter and Style ‘ ‘ : : . Ξ : ᾿ CHAPTER V. APPARATUS CRITICUS. I. Manuscripts referred to in this Volume. : ο II. Ancient Versions referred to in this Volume 111. Fathers and Ancient Writers cited in the Digest of this φώς IV. List and Specification of Editions of other Books on referred ee or made use of in this Volume 3 : : Ξ ‘ PAGE 57 59 61 PROLEGOMENA. CHAPTER I. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. SECTION I. ITS AUTHORSHIP. 1. Tue Author of this book is identical with that of the third Gospel, as plainly appears from the circumstance that in its address, to a certain Theophilus, reference is made to a former work, on the acts and words of Jesus, similarly addressed. Compare Acts i. 1, Luke i. 8. That Author is traditionally known as Lucas or Luke, spoken of Col. iv. 14, and again Philem. 24, and 2 Tim. iv. 11. For notices respecting him, see Prolegg. to Vel. I. ch. iv. § 1. 2. Nor is there any reason to reject the testimony of tradition in this matter. In chapters xxvii. and xxvill. we find our Author (see below, par. 4) accompanying Paul to Rome. In the passages above cited, all written from Rome, we find that Luke was there, in the company of that Apostle. So far at least there is nothing inconsistent with Luke having written this book ; and if this book, the Gospel. 3. That no other writer has here assumed the person of the Author of the Gospel, may be gathered from the diction of this book strongly resembling that of the other. Supposing the student to. consult the references in this Edition, he will be continually met by words and phrases either peculiar to the two books and not met with elsewhere (about fifty of these occur),—or mostly found in the two. 4. That no writer other than the Author of the rest of the book has furnished the parts in which the narrative proceeds in the first person, will be plain, if the matter be thus considered. (a) We have evidence, both by his own assertion (Luke i. 3), and from the contents of the Gospel and this book, that Luke was a careful and painstaking writer. Now it would bespeak a degree of carelessness wholly unexampled,— for one who compiled a continuous memoir, to leave its component parts, derived from various sources, in their original fragmentary state, Vor. II.—1] a PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cn. 2. some in the third, others in the first person. Unquestionably such a writer would in such a case have translated the whole into the third person. (£) Seeing that Luke does use the first person in Acts i. 1, and that the first person is resumed ch. (xiv. 22) xvi. 1O—17 ; xx. 5— 15 ; xxi. 1—18; xxvii. 1—xxviii. 16, it is but a fair inference that in one and the same book, and that book betokening considerable care of writing and arrangement, the speaker implied by the use of the first person is one and the same throughout. 5. That the author never names himself, either as the author, or otherwise, can of itself not be urged as an objection to any hypothesis of authorship, unless by the occurrence of some mention, from which the authorship by another may be fairly inferred. But, if we have in this book no mention of Luke, we have as certainly no hint of any other person having furnished the narrative. On the other hand we have a hint by which it appears that some one other than all the specified companions of Paul on a certain occasion (Acts xx. 4, 5) was with him, and was the author of the narrative. After the mention by name of Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and Trophimus, we read, ‘These having gone forward waited for us at Troas : this pronoun including Paul and the writer, at least (see note there). 6. That Paul himself, in Epistles written during the journeys here described, does not name Luke, cannot be alleged as any argument why Luke should not have been the author of our narrative. For (a), we have undoubted examples of Paul sometimes merely alluding generally to those who were with him, as Phil. iv. 21, 22 ;—sometimes sedulously suppressing their names while speaking of services performed by them, as 2 Cor. vill. 18 : sometimes not mentioning or alluding to them at all, as in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Ephesians :—and (8) strictly speaking, no Epistles appear to have been written by Paul while our writer was in his company, before his Roman imprisonment. For he does not seem to have joined him at Corinth, ch. xviii., whence the two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written :—or to have been with him at Ephesus, ch. xix..—whence (probably) the Epistle to the Galatians was written ;—nor again to have wintered with him at Corinth, ch. xx. 8, at the time of his writing the Epistle to the Romans, and (possibly) that to the Galatians. 7. But independently of the above arguments to establish the identity of the author throughout, we may infer the same from the similarity of diction and style, which do not vary through the book. Here again we have, as will be seen abundantly in the references, terms peculiar to the writer occurring in various parts of the book ;—favourite terms and. phrases occurring in all parts of the book ; which could not well have been the case, had he merely incorporated the memoirs of others. For ~ 2 | § 1.1 ITS AUTHORSHIP: | PROLEGOMENA. compendious statements of these, the whole of which have been inserted in my references, I refer the reader to Dr. Davidson’s Introd. to the IN. Ts vol. 11. pp. 4, ὁ. 8. And again, the notes will be found repeatedly to point out cases where the narrator takes up again (with his characteristic μὲν οὖν or otherwise) the thread of history previously dropped (see 6. g., and com- pare, ch. xi. 16,1. 5: xi. 19, viii, 1—4: xxi. 8, vi. 5, vill. 5 ff: xxii. 20, vii. 58, viii. 1, &c.). 9. Another interesting source of evidence on this head is pointed out by Mr. Smith, in his valuable work on the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. He has shewn that in the various narratives of sea voyages in this book, and in that of the stilling of the storm in the Gospel, Luke has, with remarkable consistency, shewn himself to be just so much acquainted with the phrases and habits of seamen, as a lapdsman well habituated to the sea, but- himself no seaman, might be expected to be. To specify instances would be beyond my limits, besides that Mr. Smith’s very interesting and ingenious argument and illustrations would be spoiled by abridgment. I can only refer my reader to his work *. 10. To the same class belong the intimations, slight indeed but interesting, discoverable here and in the Gospel in the descriptions of - diseases, that the author was one well acquainted with them and with the technical language of the medical profession. Of this kind are συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ, Luke iv. 88 ; πυρετοῖς x. δυςεντερίῳ συνεχόμενον, Acts xxviii. 8 : see also Luke viii. 45, 44,—Acts iii. 7, xii. 28, xu. 11, and compare Col. iv. 14. 11. It will be necessary to mention the various hypotheses which have substituted some other narrator for Luke in the parts of the Acts where the first person is used, or have merged his personality in that of some other companion of Paul: and, irrespective of the above argu- ments, to deal with them on their own merits. (a) Bleek and De Wette hold TimorHeus, and not Luke, to have been the companion of Paul and the narrator in the first person,—-and Luke to have inserted those portions from a journal kept by Timotheus, and without alteration. But this is not consistent with ch. xx. 4,5: where, when the com- panions of Paul have been named, and Timotheus among them, it is said οὗτοι προελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς ἐν Τρωάδι : the escape from this objection attempted by making οὗτοι refer to Tychicus and Trophimus only, being on all ordinary rules of construction, inadmissible. This reason is, to my mind, sufficient : those who wish to see others brought out, and the supports of the hypothesis (which are entirely negative and inferential} 1 A second edition of Mr. Smith’s book appeared in 1856, enlarged with much interesting detail. See the excursus below “On the city of Lasza.” 8] a2 PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ CH. I. invalidated, may consult Dr. Davidson’s Introduction to the N. T., vol. ii. pp. 9 ff. (8) Stras was the narrator in the first person, and indeed the author of the latter part of the book, beginning with ch. xv. 13 (80 ?), im the form of personal memoirs, which then were worked up. This hypothesis, which has not any thing resembling evidence to support it, is sufficiently refuted by the way in which the mention of Silas is introduced ch. xv. 22 (included by the hypothesis in his own work) as being a ‘chief man among the brethren.’ If it be answered that this notice of him was inserted by Luke,—Is it, I would ask, likely, that an author who was at no more pains in his work than to leave the jirst person standing in the narrative of another which he used, would have added to the mention of new individuals notices of this kind ? 3 (y) More ingenious, and admitting of more plausible defence, is the hypothesis, which identifies Luke himself with Silas. The latest and ablest vindication of this view is contained in an article by the Author of the literary history of the N. T. in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Lit. for Oct. 1850. The chief arguments by which he supports it are these :— (1) ‘ The author of the Acts appears, in the early part of his history, to have been well acquainted with the acts and sayings of Peter, as he was afterwards with those of Paul. Now the only persons whom this description would fit, are Silvanus (or Silas), and Mark (see 1 Pet. v. 12,13). That Mark did not after Acts xv. travel with Paul, we know: but Silas did, and from that time we find greater precision in the narrative as regards the history of that Apostle.” But to this it may be answered,—that the difference between the kind of acquaintance which the historian possesses with Peter and his sayings and doings, and that with Paul and his history, is very observ- able even to a cursory reader. No where in the first part of the book does he use the first person: and no where, although the testimony has plainly come in many parts from autoptic authority, does the narrator himself appear as the eye-witness. In fact, all that the above argu- ment insists on, is easily and naturally satisfied, by the long and inti- mate companionship of Luke and Silvanus as fellow-travellers with Paul, during which time Luke may have gathered, if Silvanus must be con- sidered as his authority, all that we now find in the former parts of our history ὅς 2 I do not notice in the text the untenableness of the author’s hypothesis that Silvanus accompanied Peter from Jerusalem into the East, and became the bearer of his first Epistle to the Christians of Asia Minor, before the commencement of his own connexion with Paul: i.e. before the gospel had ever been preached to many of those addressed by Peter, which it had already been,—see 1 Pet. i. 12, 25, and remark the aorists in both places. This extraordinary hypothesis is not necessary to his theory of the identity of Luke and Silas: indeed that theory is better without it, as then the ie Ὑ' § 1] ITS AUTHORSHIP. [ PROLEGOMENA. (2) “Luke and Silvanus (Silas) are no. where mentioned together. Luke is never mentioned in the Acts: Silas is never coupled with Luke in the addresses or salutations of the Epistles. And the two names, Silvanus from sz/va, and Lucanus from lucus, are so cognate that they ° might well be the appellations of one and the same person.” This ingenious argument, if well weighed, will be found to have but little force. As to Luke not being named in the Acts, the fact itself goes for nothing. If it have any prima facie weight, it would be against the hypothesis. That one who was careful to insert an explanatory notice respecting one so well known as Ξαῦλος ὁ καὶ Παῦλος, should take no notice at all of the fact hereafter likely to occasion so much confusion, —that he who was named Silas in the history, was: known by Paul, and mentioned in his Epistles, as Lucas,—is hardly probable. But let us observe the occasions on which Silvanus and Lucas have been mentioned by Paul. In 1 Thess. i. 1, and 2 Thess. i. 1, we have Silvanus joined with Paul and Timotheus. In 2 Cor. i. 19, we have an allusion to the preaching of Christ at Corinth by Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus. Ac- cordingly in Acts xviii. 5, we find that Silas and Timotheus came from Macedonia and joined Paul at Corinth: this occurring in a part of the history when (I am speaking according to the ordinary and prima facie inference, from the disuse of the first person since xvi. 17) the author was absent from Paul. Now let us turn to Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24°. These Epistles belong to a time when we know by the latter chapters of the Acts, that the writer of the history was with Paul. Accordingly I find Lucas mentioned in both places. So far at least is in remarkable accordance with the common view that Silas and Lucas were not one, but two persons, and that the latter was the author of the Acts, and not the former. It may be said that Paul called the same person Lucas whom he had previously called Silvanus: and this may be supported by his variations between Peter and Cephas. But (1) I conceive that the case of Peter was too exceptional an one (both names having apparently been given him and used by our Lord Himself) to found an analogy upon: and (2) Peter’s names are forms of the same meaning in two different languages, not words of similar meaning in the same language. But the principal argument in my mind against this hypothesis (over and above that from ch. xv. 22) is, that it would introduce unaccount- able confusion into the form and expression of a history, which on the common view is lucid and accountable enough. Imagine Silas to be the speaker in ch. xvi., and Luke to be merged in Silas. Then ‘we,’ from ver. 10 to ver. 18, = Silas and Timotheus. In ver. 19, it would be silence of the Acts’on Peter’s proceedings after Acts xii. is accountable, which on that hypothesis it would not be. 5. I omit at present 2 Tim. iv. 11. “1 PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. { CH. 1. natural to desert the first person, in order to express what happened to Paul and Silas, and not to Timotheus. The same specification of Paul and Silas might, for the same reason, be continued during the stay at Philippi, i. 6. to the end of that chapter. But is it conceivable, that the ‘we’ should not be resumed when the journey begins again ch. xvii. 1, —that it should not be used ch. xviii. 11, seeing that from 2 Cor. i. 1¢ it was Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, who were preaching during that time at Corinth—in fact, that it should never be resumed till ch. xx. 4, at the very place (Philippi) where it was dropped before ? The argument from the similarity of selva and lucus is too unsub- stantial to deserve serious attention. And that built on the assumption that the author of the third Gospel and the Acts must have held a place of greater honour than we find assigned to Lucas, is purely arbitrary, and sufficiently answered by observing that he is ranked with Marcus, apparently his fellow-Evangelist, in Philem. 24. Rather would it seem probable, that the men of word and action, in those times of the living energy of the Spirit, would take the highest place ; and that the work of securing to future generations the word of God would not be fully honoured, till from necessity, it became duly valued. 12. I shall now endeavour to sketch out the personal history of the author of the Acts, as far as it can be gathered, during the events which he relates. . | The first direct intimation of his being in the company of Paul, occurs ch. xvi. 10, at Troas, when Paul was endeavouring (looking for a ship) to sail into Macedonia. Now at this time, Paul had been apparently detained in Galatia by sickness, and had just passed through (preaching as he went, see ch. xviii. 23) that country and Phrygia. It is hardly probable that he had visited Colossz, as it lay far out of his route, but he may, in the then uncertainty of his destination, have done so. (See Col. ii. 1 and note.) I say this, because it is remarkable that in sending Luke’s salutation to the Colossians (Col. iv. 14), he calls him 6 ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός. This designation might recall to their minds the relation in which Luke had stood to Paul when in their country ; or more probably may have been an effusion of the warm heart of Paul, on recollection of the services rendered to him on that journey by his loving care. Atall events such a designation, occurring in such a place, is not inconsistent with the idea that Luke about that time became Paul’s companion on account of the weak state of his health. Further to establish this is impossible : but what follows is not inconsistent with it. We find him in the Apostle’s company no further than to Philippi, the object perhaps of his attendance on him having been then fulfilled ἡ. * He may have been put in charge with the church at Philippi, but the conjecture is not very probable. 6] Το ITS AUTHORSHIP. PROLEGOMENA, δ τὸ 13. If we seek for any trace of previous connexion between Luke and Paul, we find nothing but the very slightest hint, and that perhaps hardly to be taken as such. In ch. xiv. 21, 22 we read, that Paul, after the stoning at Lystra, departed with Barnabas to Derbe, and returned through Lystra and Iconium and Antioch (in Pisidia) confirming the sous of the disciples, exhorting them -to remain in the faith, καὶ ὅτι διὰ πολλῶν θλίψεων δεῖ ἡμᾶς εἰςελθεῖν εἰς τ. βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. This ἡμᾶς may be, as commonly understood, spoken by the writer as a Chris- tian, and of ali Christians: but it may also be indicative of the writer's presence®: and I cannot help connecting it with the tradition that Luke was a native of Antioch®: though Antioch in Syria is there meant. Certainly, in the account (ch. xiii.) of the events at Antioch in Pisidia, there is remarkable particularity. Paul’s speech is fully reported: the account of its effect vv. 44—49 given with much earnestness of feeling :—and one little notice is added after the departure of Paul and Barnabas, ver. 52, which looks.very like the testimony of one who was left behind at Antioch. Whether this may have been the place of Luke’s own conversion, we know not ; but a peculiar interest evidently hangs about this preaching at Antioch in the mind of the narrator, be he who he may : and Mark had departed, who might have supplied the Cyprian events (see ver. 13). 14. After the second junction with Paul and his company, ch. xx. 5, we find him remaining with the Apostle to the end of our history. It would not be necessary to suppose this second attachment to him to have had the same occasion as the first. That which weakness of body at first made advisable, affection may subsequently have renewed. And we have reason to believe that this was really the case. Not only the epithet ἀγαπητός, Col. iv. 14, but the fact, that very late in the life of the Apostle (see Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii.) when “all in Asia were turned away from him” (2 Tim. i. 15), and Demas, Crescens, and Titus had for various reasons left him, the faithful Luke still remained (2 Tim. iv. 11), bespeaks an ardent and steady attachment to the person of him who in all probability was his father in the faith. 15. Of the subsequent history and death of Luke nothing is known. 5 The idea that ἡμᾶς can by any possibility be applied to the writer has been contro- verted by Prof. Lightfoot in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology for March, 1856, p. 95. But see note in Joc. 6 That the two places of that name would thus be confounded, is nothing surprising to those who are familiar with tradition. The usual ground assigned for this idea, viz. the mention of Lucius (of Cyrene) as being at Antioch, ch. xiii. 1, is certainly far from satisfactory, PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ Ce. Σ, SECTION IL. ITS SOURCES. 1. The principal enquiry respecting the sources of the narrative in the Acts relates to the first part as far as ch. xiii. After that, the history follows the Apostle Paul, of whom its writer was subsequently the con- stant companion. From him therefore the incidents might be derived, where the writer himself was not present. I shall before the end of this section enquire how far the appearances warrant our supposing that his testimony has furnished such portions. 2. I proceed to enquire into the probable sources of the first part of our history. And here something will depend on our answer to another question, — When is it probable that Luke was engaged in drawing up the book? I shall endeavour to support in another section my firm conviction that its publication took place at the end of the two years mentioned in ch. xxviii. 30,31. It may be convenient for me at. present to assume that to have been the case, but my argument does not altogether depend on that assumption. I proceed on the hardly deniable inference, that of the last voyage and shipwreck a regular journal was kept by Luke—probably set down during the winter months at Malta. It must then be evident, that at this time the pur- pose of writing a δεύτερος λόγος was ripened in his mind. But how long had this purpose been in his mind? Am J altogether beside the mark in supposing, that it was with this purpose among others that he became one of Paul’s company on the return to Asia in ch. xx. 4, 5? Whether (see Prolegg. to Luke, § iv. 2, 3) the Gospel was written for the most part during the interval between Luke being left at Philippi in ch. xvi. and his being taken up at the same place in ch. xx., or after- wards in Palestine,—on either supposition it is not improbable that the writing of the Acts was at this time already designed,—either as a sequel to the Gospel already finished, or simultaneously with the Gospel, as its future sequel. 3. It is very possible that the design may have grown under his hands, or more properly speaking have been by little and little sug- gested by the direction of the Spirit of God. He may have intended, on leaving Philippi with Paul (ch. xx. 4, 5), only to draw up a διήγησις of his own travels in company with that Apostle, to serve as a record of his acts and sayings in tounding the churches in Europe and Asia. However this may have been, we tind him recording minutely every circumstance of this voyage, which I take to have been the first written portion of the book. At any time during that or subsequent travels, or during the two year's at Rome, he may have filled in those parts of the narrative 8] ὅπ. ITS SOURCES. [PROLEGOMENA. which occurred during his absence from Paul,—by the oral dictation of the Apostle. 4, Let us now suppose Paul already in custody at Cesarea. The narrative has been brought down to that time. The circumstances of his apprehension,—his defence before the Jews,—their conspiracy, — his rescue from them and transmission to Felix,—all this has been duly and minutely recorded,—even the letter of Claudius Lysias having been obtained, probably by acquaintance with some one about Felix. An intention similar to that announced in παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς (Luke i. 3) is here evidently shewn. 5. But now Providence interposes, and lays aside the great Apostle for two years. During all this time Luke appears to have been not far from his neighbourhood, watching the turn of events, ready to accom- pany him to Rome, according to the divine announcement of ch. xxiii. 11. But “they also serve, who only stand and wait.” What so natural, as that he should avail himself of this important interval to obtain, from Cesarea and Jerusalem, and perhaps from other parts of Palestine, information by which he might complete his hitherto frag- mentary notices ? That accurate following up of every thing, or rather tracing down of every thing from its source,—what time so appropriate for it as this, when among the brethren in Judea he might find many eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, and might avail himself of the διηγήσεις Which of all places would be most likely to abound there where the events themselves had happened ? During this interval therefore I suppose Luke to have been employed in ΕΣ: materials, perhaps for his Gospel, but certainly for the first part of the Acts. 6. His main source of information would be the church at Jerusalem. There, from James, or from some apostolic men who had been on the spot from the first, he would learn the second and fuller account of the Ascension,—the weighty events of the day of Pentecost, the following acts and discourses. In the fulness of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the apostles and elders at this time, which raised them above ordinary men in power of spirit and utterance, it would be merely an inference from analogy, that their remembrance of the words uttered at remarkable crises of the apostolic history should be something sur- passing mere human recollection: that these hallowed words of the Spirit’s own prompting should have abode with the church for its com- fort and instruction, and finally have been committed to writing for all subsequent ages. 7. But if analogy would a priori suggest this, the phenomena of our history confirm it. The references (which have been on that account a singularly interesting labour) will shew to the attentive student in those speeches, quite enough peculiarities to identify them as the sentiments and diction of the great Apostle of the circumcision, while at the same 9] Pe ol PROLEGOMENA.]| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. (cH. I. time there is enough of Luke’s own style and expression to shew. that the whole material has been carefully worked over and grecized by his hand. 8. It has been much disputed whether Luke used written documents in constructing this part of the Acts’. It may have been so. Detailed memoirs of some of the most important events may have been drawn up. If so, ch. ii. would in all probability be such a memoir. The letters, ch. xv. 23—29 (xxiii. 26—30), must have been of this kind: some of the discourses, as that of Peter ch. xi. 5—17, containing expressions unknown to Luke’s style (see reff.) : more or less, the other speeches of Peter, containing many striking points of similarity to (both) his Epistles, —see reff. At the same time, from the similarity of ending of the earlier sections (compare ch. ii. 46, 47; iv. 82 ff.; v. 42; ix. 31; xii. 24), from the occurrence of words and phrases peculiar to Luke in the midst of such speeches as those noticed above (e. g. σταθέντα ch. xi. 18, and see Dr. Davidson p. 30 for a list, which I have incorporated in the reff.), the inference must be (as in the last paragraph) that such documents were not adopted until their language had been revised, where thought necessary, by the author himself. The very minute and careful detail of ch. xii., evidently intended to give the highest authority to the narrative of Peter’s miraculous deliveranece,—so that the house itself of Mary the mother of John Mark is specified, the name of the female servant who went to the door, her remarks and the answer made to her, are all given,—has apparently been the result of diligent enquiry on the spot, from the parties concerned. We can hardly resist the inference that the very same persons who fifteen years before had been witnesses of the deliverance, now gave the details of an occurrence which they could never forget, and described their own feelings on it. 9. Whether Luke at this time can Lave fallen in with Peter person- ally, is very questionable. That Apostle certainly does not appear to have been at Jerusalem when Paul visited it: and from the omission of all mention of him after ch. xv., the natural inference is, that he was not there during any part of Paul’s imprisonment. (See note on Gal. ii. 1}, and Prolegg. to 1 Pet. ᾧ ii. 6, 7.) 10. But one very important section of the first part of the Acts is concerned with events which happened at Cesarea,—and derived from information obtained there. There dwelt Philip the Evangelist, one of the seven (ch. xxi. 8): a most important authority for the contents of ch, vi. and viii. ὅν if not also for some events previous to ch. vi. There 7 See the question discussed by Dr. Davidson, pp. 21 ff. 8 De Wette (Exeget. Handb. Apostg. p. 6) objects that Philip could hardly have imparted ch. viii. 39 in its present form. At first sight, it seems so: but the next verse εὐηγγελίζετο τὰς πόλεις πάσας, K.T.A. can on the other hand hardly have been imparted by any but Philip: and this leads us to think whether subsequent enquiry 10] § u.] ITS SOURCES. | PROLEGOMENA. too, we may well believe, still dwelt, if not Cornelius himself*, yet some of the συνεληλυθότες πολλοί of ch. x. 27,—the persons perhaps who had gone to fetch Peter from Joppa,—at all events plenty who could nar- rate the occurrences of that memorable day, and the words which formed the great procem of the Gentile Gospel. 11. Connected with the Cesarean part of our history, is one minute touch of truth and accuracy, which is interesting as pointing to careful research and information of the most trustworthy kind. The awful death of Herod Agrippa I. had happened on a great public occasion. It appears that the celebration of a festival in honour of Cesar had also been selected as the time of audience for an embassy of the inhabitants of Tyreand Sidon, and during this audience, after making an oration to the embassy, Herod was struck by the hand of God. Now of this latter particular, the Sidonian embassy, the Jewish historian knows nothing. (See the passage quoted, ad loc. ch. xii. 21.) But Luke, who had made careful enquiries on the spot, who had spent a week at Tyre, ch. xxi. 4—7, —and Paul, who had friends at Sidon, ch. xxvii. ὃ, were better acquainted with the facts of the occurrence than to overlook, as Josephus did, the minute details in the general character of the festival. 12. One or two sections in the former part of the Acts require sepa- rate consideration. (a) The apology of Stephen, from its length and peculiar charac- teristics, naturally suggests an enquiry as to the source whence it may probably have been obtained by Luke. And here I should feel little hesitation in ascribing a principal share in the report to him who was so deeply implicated in Stephen’s martyrdom,—who shews by his own reference (ch. xxii. 20) to the part taken by him on that occasion, how indelibly it was fixed in his memory,—and who in more than one place of his recorded speeches and writings, seems to reproduce the very thoughts and expressions of Stephen. At the same time, it would be improbable that the church at Jerusalem should have preserved no memorial of so important a speech as that of her first martyr before his judges. So that, however we may be inclined to attribute much of its particularity and copiousness to information derived from Paul, it must be classed, as to its general form, among those contributions to the history obtained by Luke at Jerusalem. (8) The narrative of the conversion of Saul in ch. ix. can hardly fail respecting the eunuch (who as he had before come to Jerusalem to worship at the feast, so would again) may not have enabled Philip to add this particular, ἐπορεύετο γὰρ τ. ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ χαίρων, over and above what he could know at the time. 9 It seems probable that the Roman forces never left Caesarea during the whole period from Augustus to Vespasian. The territory during that time (see chronological table) was alternately part of the province of Syria, and a dependent kingdom : but the garrisons do not appear to have been changed in such cases. 11] ΄ PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cu. % to have been derived from himself. I have shewn in the notes that there are no discrepancies between this and the two other relations of the same event, but such as may easily be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances under which each is given, and the necessarily varying expressions of narratives which were afterwards not reduced into har- mony with each other, but written faithfully down as delivered. 13. Agreeable with the above suppositions is the fact, that the former part of the book presents more traces of Hebraistic idiom, not only in speeches, but in the form of the historical narrative’. 14. I proceed now to an enquiry promised in par. 1 of this section : How far we have indications of the lacune in the author's personal tes- timony in the latter part having been filled in by that of Paul. Perhaps one of the best sections for the purpose of this examination will be that from ch. xvii. 16—xviii. 5, which relates to a time when Paul was left alone. Do we discover in the narrative or speech the traces of an unusual hand, and if so, whose is it? That some unusual hand has been here employed, is evident: for in the six verses 16—21 inclusive, we have no fewer than nine expressions foreign to Luke’s style*, or no where else occurring : and in the speech itself, no fewer than nineteen*. Now of these twenty-eight expressions, five are either peculiar to, or employed principally by Paul‘; besides that we find the phrase τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ, so frequently (see reff.) used by him of his own spirit or feelings. That the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the speech exceed in number the expressions indicative of his style, may fairly be accounted for by the peculiar nature of the occasion on which he spoke. Here I think we can hardly fail to trace the hand of the Apostle by quite as many indications as we might expect to find. That Luke should, as in every other case, have wrought in the section into his work, and giver it the general form of his own narrative, would only be natural, and we find it has been so®. 15, It may be instructive to carry on the examination of this part of 1 See ch. i. 15, 23: the connexion by καί ch. ii. 1—4: ἀπὸ mposw@mov τ. συνεδρ., v.41: ἠκούσθη ὁ λόγος cis TA ὦτα τ. ἐκκλησίας, xi. 22: παῖς θεοῦ (of Christ), ch. 111. 18, 26; iv. 27, 80; (of David) iv. 25: διὰ στόματος Δανείδ or τῶν προφ., i. 16,—iii. 18, 21,—iv. 25 :—of υἱοὶ Ἴσρ., v. 21 :—7 γερουσία, ib., Ke. 2 ἐκδεχομένου, παρωξύνετο, κατείδωλον, παρατυγχάνοντας, σπερμολόγος, ξένων (bis), καταγγελεύς, ξενίζοντα, ηὐκαίρουν. 3 δεισιδαιμονεστέρους, ἀναθεωρῶν, σεβάσματα, βωμόν, ἐπεγέγραπτο, (ἀγνώστῳ,) εὐσεβεῖτε, ἀνθρωπίνων, (θεραπεύεται,) mposdeduevos, ὁροθεσίας, κατοικίας, (ζητεῖν χαράγματι, (réxvns,) ἐνθυμήσεως, τὸ θεῖον, ὑπεριδών, ἔστησεν. 4 ἐκδέχομαι, παροξύνω, εὐκαιρέω, σέβασμα, ἀνθρώπινος.---καταγγέλλω, ὁρίζω, εἷς ἕκαστος with gen. partitive, are peculiar to Luke and Paul: ἀγνοέω is a favourite word in the Epistles of Paul. 5 We have the characteristic διελέγετο, ἐπιλαμβάνομαι, εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς (Luke viii. 1), atabeis, διερχόμενος, καθότι. 12] § 1. ] ITS SOURCES. | PROLEGOMENA. the history somewhat further. Atch. xviii. 5, Silas and Timotheus joined Paul at Corinth. One at least of these, Timotheus, was afterwards for a considerable time in the company of Luke in the journey from Philippi to Jerusalem. But on his arrival at Corinth, no alteration in the style of the narrative is perceptible. It still remains the mixed diction of Paul and Luke : the az. Aeyy. are fewer, while we have some remarkable traces of Paul’s hand*. Again, in vv. 24—28 of the same chapter, we have a description of what took place with regard to Apollos at Ephe- sus, when Paul himself was absent. This portion it would be natural to suppose might have been furnished by Apollos himself, were it not for the laudatory description of ver. 24. If not by Apollos, then by Aquila and Priscilla to Paul on his return to Ephesus. And so it seems to have been. The general form is Luke’s: the peculiarities are mostly Paul’s ”. 16. The examination of these sections may serve to shew that the great Apostle appears to have borne a principal part in informing Luke with regard to such parts of his history : the traces of this his share in the work being visible by the occurrence of words and phrases peculiar to him in the midst of the ordinary narrative from Luke’s own pen. These he preserved, casting the merely narrative matter into the form in which he usually wrote. 17. It yet remains, before terminating this section, to say something of the speeches reported in the latter part of the Acts. Are they Paul’s own words, or has Luke in this ease also gone over the matter, and left the impression of his style on it ? These speeches are, (a) the discourse to the Ephesian elders in ch. xx. 18—35,—() the apology before the Jews, ch. xxii. 1—2Z1,—(y) the apology before Felix, ch. xxiv. 10—21,—(8) the apology before Agrippa and Festus, ch. xxvi. 1—29. (α) The discourse to the Ephesian elders is a rich storehouse of phrases and sentiments peculiar to Paul. These are so numerous, and so remarkable, that nothing short of a complete study of the passage, with the references, will put the reader in full possession of them. Very faint traces are found of the hand of Luke*®. Of those mentioned in 6 συνείχετο, ver. 5,—Kabapds ἐγώ, 6,—mapa τὸν νόμον, 18,--- ἀδίκημα, 14 (see ch. xxiv. 20), ῥᾳδιούργημα, ib. (see ch. xiii. 10), ἠνεσχόμην ὑμῶν, ib., λόγου, 15,—Ke. 7 κατηχημένος, ἀκριβῶς ἤρξατο παῤῥησιάζεσθαι, ἐξέθεντο, διελθεῖν, ἀποδέξασθαι, παραγενόμενος, ἐὐτόνως διακατηλέγχετο (an ἅπ. A., but in Luke’s manner of using long ~ compounds), belong to Luke’s style: ζέων τῷ πνεύματι, δημοσίᾳ (ch. xvi. 37 3 xx. 20 only), to that of Paul. 8. Among these may perhaps be counted the opening words ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε (compare ch. x. 28, 37)—éréBnv eis τ. ᾿Ασ. (ch. xxi. 4),---διῆλθον (ver. 25) :---προξέχετε ἑαυτοῖς (ver. 28),---ἀναστήσονται (ver. 80),---ὁπέδειξα (ver. 35). But most of these are such that we can only say Paul has not used the expressions, or not in the same sense: that he would not have done so, if occasion had- offered, we cannot affirm. 13] PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [CH. I. the note, scarcely any are decisive, whereas hardly a line of the whole is without unmistakable evidences that we have here the words of Paul. In the Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles, I hope to shew the importance of this discourse, as bearing on the very difficult question of the diction and date of those precious and to my mind indubitable relics of the great Apostle ὃ. (8) The apology before the Jews (ch. xxii. 1—21) was spoken in Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic). Another interesting question is therefore here involved, Did Luke understand Hebrew ? ‘The answer to the two questions will be one and the same. We may find the diction of this translation either so completely Luke’s, as to render it probable that he was the translator ;—or it may bear traces, as usual, of Paul’s own phraseology set down and worked up by Luke. In the former case, we may confidently infer that he must have understood Hebrew : in the latter, we may (but not with equal confidence, for Paul may by pre- ference have given his own version of his own speech) conclude that that language was unknown to him. If again the speech is full of Hebraisms, it may lead us to infer that Paul himself was not the translator into Greek, but one who felt himself more strictly bound to a literal ren- dering than the speaker himself, who would be likely to give his own thoughts and meaning a freer and more Grecian dress. Now we do /ind, (1) that the speech is full of Hebraisms: (2) that while it contains several expressions occurring no where but in the writings of Luke’, not one is found in it peculiar to Paul, or even strikingly in his manner. Our inference then is that Luke himself has rendered this speech, from having heard it delivered ;—and consequently, that he was acquainted with Hebrew. (y) The short apology before Felix (ch. xxiv. 10—21) contains some traces of Paul’s manner’, but still they are scanty, and the evidences of Luke’s hand predominate, as may be seen from the reff. Its very com- pendious character makes it probable that it may have been drawn up by Luke from Paul’s own report of the substance of what he said. (8) The important apology before Agrippa and Festus (ch. xxvi. 1— 29) is full of Paul’s peculiar expressions *. It was spoken in Greek, and 9 See Vol. III. Prolegg. ch. vii. § i. 33 note. 1 σύνειμι, εὐλαβής, αὐτῇ τῇ Spa, ἔκστασις, are peculiar to Luke: ἐπιστάς is a favourite word with him: and very many other expressions, as may be seen by reff., are in the common manner of his writings. 2 ibn ga es)? ~ toast ἐτῶν, -- Πα perhaps ἀδίκημα. 3 ἥγημαι (in this sense never used by Luke, but by Paul 11 times), ὄντα σε (ace. pendens, see reff.),—3:6,—paxpoOvuws (only used here, but the cognate words are verv favourite ones with Paul),—xpoyivdéonovtes,—Opnoxeia,—em ἐλπίδι K.T.A,—voKTa κ. ἡμέραν (see reff.),—Karavtjoa (see reff.),—kKpiverat παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, ---ἔδοξα, ---ἐναντία (com- pare ch. xxviii. 17),--- ἁγίων (in Acts, only ch. ix. 13, of Pawl,—and in the section ch. ix. 92--- 48, but in the Epistles passim),—timwp@v,—tas ἔξω πόλεις,---ὑπὲρ τ. λαμπ.--- 14] § 10. ] FOR WHAT READERS, &c. —[PROLEGOMENA. taken down very nearly as spoken. Some phrases however cccur in it which seem to belong to Luke‘; just enough to shew the hand which has committed the speech to writing. We must remember however that several of these are expressive of meanings not elsewhere occurring in Paul’s composition, which therefore he may well, in uttering, have thus expressed. 18. Our conclusion from this examination may be thus stated: (1) That in all cases the diction of the speeches was more or less modified by Luke's hand. (2) That they are not in any case (as some have supposed) composed by him for the speaker, but were really in substance, and for the most part in very words, uttered as written. (8) That the differences apparent in the greater or less amount of editorial diction in different speeches, remarkably correspond to the alleged occasions and modes of their delivery:—where Paul spoke Hebrew, hardly any traces of his own style being discernible,—as also where a short compendium only of his speech is given ; while on the other hand speeches manifestly reported at length and which were spoken in Greek originally, are full of the characteristic peculiarities of Paul himself. 19. For many other interesting particulars connected with the sources of the narrative in the Acts, I refer the student to Dr. Davidson’s Introduction to the N. T. vol. ii. SECTION III. FOR WHAT READERS AND WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN. 1. The Gospel of Luke commences with a preface, in which he de- elares his object with sufficient precision. Dedicating it to his friend Theophilus, he describes it as a record of τὰ πεπληροφορημένα ἐν ἡμῖν mpdypara,—and asserts his purpose in writing it to be, wa ἐπιγνῷς rept dv κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. Now there can be little ques- tion that both these descriptions apply to the Acts also. The book is introduced without preface, as a second part following on the former treatise : a δεύτερος λόγος to the Gospel. 2. I have stated with regard to the Gospel, that we can hardly sup- pose Luke’s design to have confined itself to Theophilus, but must believe that he followed the common practice of dedicating his work to some one person of rank or influence, and describing it as written for him. The same applies also to the Acts: and the class of readers for κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις,---μετανοεῖν (absol.),—éextds,—mpa@tos ἐξ ἄναστ.,---σωφρο- σύνη,- -ἐν ὀλίγῳ,--ὁποῖος,---παρεκτός. 4 ἐν φυλακαῖς κατέκλεισα,---ἐξουσίαν λαβών,--- ἀναιρουμένων (never used by Paul), ---περιλάμψαν,.---καταπεσόντων,---συλλαβόμενοι,--- διαχειρίσασθαι.----ἀποφθέγγομαι. 15] PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [CH. I. whom Luke wrote is the same as before ; viz. Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. 3. If a further specification of his object in writing be required, it can only be furnished by an unprejudiced examination of the contents of the book. These are found to be, The fulfilment of the promise of the Father by the descent of the Holy Spirit: the results of that out- pouring, by the dispersion of the Gospel among Jews and Gentiles. Under these leading heads, all the personal and subordinate details may be ranged. Immediately after the ascension, Peter, the first of the twelve, the Rock on whom the church was to be built, the holder of the keys of the Kingdom, becomes the great Actor under God in the founding of the Church. He is the centre of the first great group of sayings and doings. The opening of the door to Jews (ch. ii.) and Gentiles (ch. x) is his office,—and by him, in the Lord’s own time, is accomplished. But none of the existing Twelve were (humanly speaking) fitted to preach the Gospel to the cultivated Gentile world. ‘To be by divine grace the spiritual conqueror of Asia and Europe, God raised up another instrument, from among the highly educated and zealous Pha- risees. The preparation of this instrument for the work to be done,— the progress in his hand of that work—his journeyings, preachings and perils, his stripes and imprisonments, his testifying in Jerusalem, and being brought to testify in Rome,—these are the subjects of the latter half of the book, of which the great central figure is the Apostle Paul. 4, Nor can we attribute this with any probability to a set design of a comparison between the two great Apostles, or of an apology.for Paul by exhibiting him as acting in consonance with the principles which regu- lated Peter. All such hypothesis is in the highest degree unnatural and forced. The circumstances before the narrator’s view would, without any such design, have led to the arrangement of the book as we now find it. The writer was the companion of Paul ;—and in the land which had been the cradle of the Church he gathered materials for the portion which might join his Gospel to the narrative with which Paul’s history began. In that interval, Peter was the chief actor: Peter was the acknowledged ‘chosen vessel’ in the first days of the Gospel. But Luke does not confine himself to Peter’s acts. He gives at length the mission of Philip to the Gaza road and the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch, with which Peter had no connexion whatever. He gives at length the history of Stephen—the origin of the office which he held, — his apology,—his martyrdom,—how naturally, as leading to the narrative of the conversion of him who took so conspicuous a part in the transac- tions of that day ὅ. 5 Schneckenburger, who (as well as Griesbach and Baur) holds the theory against which this paragraph is directed, is obliged to suppose that Stephen was purposely introduced to be exhibited as the prototype and forerunner of Paul. That Stephen 16] διν. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. [prorecomena., 5. Any view which attributes ulterior design to the writer, beyond that of faithfully recording such facts as seemed important in the history of the Gospel, is, I am persuaded, mistaken. Many ends are answered by the book in the course of this narration, but they are the designs of Providence, not the studied purposes of the writer :—e. g., the sedulous offer of the Gospel to the Jewish people,—their continual rejection of it,—the as continual turning to the Gentiles :—how strik- ingly does this come out before the reader as we advance,—and how easily might this be alleged as the design,—supported as the view would be by the final interview of Paul with the Jews at Rome, and his solemn application of prophecy to their unbelief and hardness of heart. Again, in the course of the book, more and more strongly does it appear that God’s purpose was to gather a people out of the Gentiles to His name: so that by Michaelis thzs is assigned as one of two great objects of the book. And so we might pass on through the whole cycle of progress of the faith of Christ, and hypotheses might be raised, as each great purpose of Providence is seen unfolding, that to narrate it was the object of the work. SECTION IV. AT WHAT TIME AND PLACE IT WAS WRITTEN. 1. I see no cause for departing from the opinion already expressed in the Prolegomena to Luke’s Gospel (Vol. I., Prol., § iv. 1) that the Acts was completed and published at the expiration of the two years described in the last verse of chap. xxviii. No reason can be assigned, why, had any considerable change in the circumstances of Paul taken place, it should not have been mentioned by Luke. The same will hold still more strongly of the death of the Apostle. 2. The prevalent opinion of recent critics in Germany has been, that the book was written much later than this. But this opinion is for the most part to be traced to their subjective leanings on the prophetic announcement of Luke xxi. 24. For those who hold that there is no such thing as prophecy (and this unhappily is the case with many of the modern German critics), it becomes necessary to maintain that that verse was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence, as the Acts is the sequel to the Gospel, much more must the Acts have been written after that event. To us in England, who receive the verse in question as a truthful account of the words spoken by our Lord, and was so, in some sense, is true enough; but the assimilation of Paul to Stephen is a result springing naturally out of the narrative, not brought about by the writer of the history. Supposing the facts to have been as related, it was most natural that Paul should earnestly desire the whole particulars respecting Stephen to be minutely recorded: and so we find them. Vou. 11.-- 17] Ρ PROLEGOMENA, | THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cH. L see in them a weighty prophetic declaration which is even now nct wholly fulfilled, this argument at least has no weight. 8. The last-mentioned view (which is that of De Wette) differs from that of Meyer (Edn. 1), who saw in ch. viii. 26 (αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος) a terminus a quo, and in the omission of all mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, a terminus ad quem, for the publication οἵ the history ; which he was therefore inclined to place at the beginning of the Jewish war, after the destruction of Gaza by the revolutionary bands of the Jews, and before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the notice of ch. viii. 26 cannot be fairly thus taken: see note there, in which I have endeavoured to give the true meaning of ἔρημος as applying to ὁδός and not fo Gaza, and as spoken by the angel, not added by the Evangelist. Meyer’s latter terminus, and the argument by which he fixes it, I hold to be sound. It would be beside all proba- bility, that so great, and for Christianity so important an eyent, as the overthrow of the Jewish city, temple, and nation, should have passed without even an allusion in a book in which that city, temple, and nation, bear so conspicuous a part. 4. Meyer also (Edn. 1, Einl. p. 7) endeavoured to render a reason why the subsequent proceedings of Paul in Rome should not have been noticed. They were, he imagines, well known to Theophilus, an Italian himself, if nota Roman. But this is the merest caprice of conjecture. What convincing evidence have we that Theophilus was a Roman, or an Tiaiian ? And this view would hardly (though Meyer laboured to make it do so) account for the narration of what did take place in Rome,— especially for the last verse of the book. It is fair to state that in sub- sequent editions Meyer has abandoned this view for that impugned at the beginning of par. 2. 5. De Wette attempts to account for the histery ending where it does, because the words of our Lord in ch. i. 8 had been accomplished, and so the object of the history fulfilled. But how were they more accomplished at that particular time than before ? Rome had not been specified in that command: and he who now preached at Rome was not formally addressed in those words. Rather, if the object of the writer had been merely to trace these words to their fulfilment, should he have followed the actual Apostles to whom they were spoken, many of whom we have reason to believe much more literally preached ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς, than St. Paul. But no such design, or none such in so formal a shape, was in the mind of our Evangelist. That the Lord commanded and his Apostles obeyed, would be the obvious course of history ; but that the mere bringing of one of those Apostles to the head of the civilized world should have been thought to exhaust that command, is inconceivable as a ground for breaking off the narration. 6. Still more futile is the view that it was broken off because the 18] § τν.] TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. [PROLEGoMENa. promise of ch. xxiii. 11 was now fulfilled (οὕτως oe det καὶ εἰς Ῥώμην μαρτυρῆσαι). For on this view, the being brought before Cesar ought to have been expressly narrated : another promise having been given to Paul, ch. xxvii. 24, μὴ φοβοῦ, Παῦλε, Καίσαρί σε δεῖ παραστῆναι. Indeed this very argument tells forcibly in favour of the date commonly as- signed. Without attributing it as an object in the mind of the writer, to relate the fulfilment of every divine promise recorded by him, we may at least regard it as probable, that had he been able to chronicle the fulfilment of this promise, he would have done so, seeing that the apology before Cesar was so weighty an event, and that three former apologies, those before the Jews, before Felix, and before Festus and Agrippa, had been inserted. 7. If we look at the probabilities of the matter, we shall find that the time commonly assigned was by very far the most likely for the publi- cation of the book. The arrival at Rome was an important period in the Apostle’s life: the quiet which succeeded it seemed to promise no immediate determination of his cause: a large amount of historic mate- rial was collected :—or perhaps, taking another view, Nero was begin- ning ‘in pejus mutari:’ none could tell how soon the whole outward repose of Roman society might be shaken, and the tacit toleration which now the Christians enjoyed be exchanged for bitter persecution. If such terrors loomed in the prospect of even those who judged from worldly probabilities, there would surely be in the church at Rome prophets and teachers, who might tell them by the Holy Ghost of the storm which was gathering, and might warn them that the words lying ready for publication must be given to the faithful before its outbreak, or never. It is true that such ἃ priori considerations would weigh little against presumptive evidence furnished by the book itself: but wher arrayed in aid of such evidence, they carry with them no small weight : when we find that the time naturally and fairly indicated in the book itself for its publication, is that one of all others when we should con- ceive that publication most likely. 8. We thus get a.p. 63 (see the following table) for the date of the publication. 9. The same arguments which establish the date, also fix the place. At Rome, among the Christians there, was this history first made public, which has since then in all parts and ages of the church formed a recognized and important part of the canon of Scripture. | 10. As regards the title of the book, we may observe, that it appears to represent the estimate, not of one culling these out of more copious materials, but of an age when these were αἰ the Acts of the Apostles extant : and probably therefore proceeded not from the author, but from the transcribers. Le) 19] b PROLEGOMENA. |] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cH. 1. SECTION V. GENUINENESS, AND STATE OF THE TEXT. 1. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25), recounting the ὁμολογούμεναι θεῖαι γραφαί, SAYS, τακτέον ἐν πρώτοις τὴν ἁγίαν τῶν εὐαγγελίων τετρακτὺν οἷς ἕπεται ἣ τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων γραφή. And in iii. 4.--- Λουκᾶς τὸ μὲν γένος av τῶν ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείας, τὴν δὲ ἐπιστήμην ἰατρός, τὰ πλεῖστα συγγεγονὼς τῷ Παύλῳ, καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς δὲ οὐ περιέργως τῶν ἀποστόλων ὧμιληκώς, ἧς ἀπὸ τούτων προςεκτήσατο ψυχῶν θεραπευτικῆς ἐν δυσὶν ἡμῖν ὑποδείγματα θεοπνεύστοις καταλέλοιπε βιβλίοις: τῷ τε εὐαγγελίῳ... .. καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἀποστόλων πράξεσιν, ἃς οὐκέτι Ov ἀκοῆς, ὀφθαλμοῖς δὲ αὐτοῖς παραλαβὼν συνετάξατος And many earlier fathers, either by citation or by allusion, have sufficiently shewn that the book was esteemed by them part of the canon of Scripture. (a) Papias (see Euseb. H. E. iii. 39) does not mention nor refer to the Acts. He speaks indeed of Philip, and his daughters, but mistakes him (?) for Philip the Apostle: and of Justus surnamed Barsabas. Nor are there any references in Justin Martyr which, fairly considered, belong to this book. Such as are sometimes quoted may be seen in Lardner, vol. i. p. 122. The same may be said of Clement of Rome. Ignatius is supposed to allude to it (μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀνάστασιν συνέφαγεν αὐτοῖς καὶ συνέπιεν. Smyrn. ὃ 8, p. 709. Compare Acts x. 41): so also Polycarp (ὃν ἔγειρεν 6 θεός, λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ ddov. Phil. ὃ 1, p. 1005. Compare Acts ii. 24). (8) The first direct quotation occurs in the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to those of Asia and Phrygia (a.p. 177) given in Euseb. H. E. v. 2. Speaking of the martyrs, they say, ὑπὲρ τῶν τὰ δεινὰ διατιθέντων ηὔχοντο, καθάπερ Στέφανος 6 τέλειος μάρτυς" κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ταύτην. (γ) Irenzus frequently and expressly quotes this book : and in book ili. ch. 14, p. 201 f., he gives a summary of the latter part of the Acts, attributing it to Luke as its writer. (δ) Clement of Alexandria quotes it often, and as the work of Luke: e. g. καθὸ καὶ ὃ Λουκᾶς ἐν tals πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀπομνημονεύει TOV Παῦλον λέγοντα' "Avdpes ᾿Αθηναῖοι, x.7.A. (see Acts xvii. 22, 28) Strom. v. 12 (83), p. 696 P. (ε) Tertullian often quotes it expressly : 6. g. ‘ Adeo postea in Actis apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Joannis baptismum habebant, non accepissent Spiritum Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidem noverant’ (com- pare Acts xix. 1—3), De baptismo, ec. 10, vol. i. p. 1211. And again: ‘cum in eodem commentario Luce, et tertia hora orationis demonstretur, sub qua Spiritu Sancto initiati pro ebriis habebantur, et sexta, qua Petrus ascendit in superiora,’ &c. De jejuniis, ο. 10, vol. ii. p. 966. 20] δτ.)] GENUINENESS, AND STATE OF TEXT. [ΡΕΟΙΞΟΟΜΕΝΑ. 2. (a) The Marcionites (cent. ili.) and the Manichzans (cent. iv.) rejected the Acts as contradicting some of their notions. ‘Cur Acta respuatis Jam apparet, ut deum scilicet non alium predicantia quam creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam creatoris, quando nec promissio Spiritus sancti aliunde probetur exhibita, quam de instrumento Ac- torum.” Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. v. ὃ 2, vol. ii. p. 472. And of the Manichezans, Augustine says, ‘“‘ Manichezi canonicum librum cujus titulus est Actus Apostolorum repudiant. ‘Timent enim evidentissimam veri- tatem, ubi apparet, Sanctum Spiritum missum qui est a Domino Jesu Christo evangelica virtute preditus.” Epist. cexxxvii. 2, vol. ii. p. 1035. (8) Some modern critics in Germany, especially Baur, have made use of the hypothesis, that the Acts is an apology for Paul (see above, § ii. 4), to throw discredit on the book, and to bring down its publica- tion to the second century. But with the hypothesis will also fall that which is built on it ; and from the reasoning of the preceding seetions it may be seen how utterly impracticable it would have been for an imitator to draw up narratives and speeches which should present the phenomena, in relation to the facts underlying them, which these do. ὃ. The text of the Acts, in D and E of the leading MSS., and their cognates in the mss. and versions, is varied by many interpolations of considerable length. It may suffice to point out a few of these, referring the student to the various readings to examine them in detail ς ¢hap. x..25 3 xi. 2, 17°25, 26) 28% sas χιν ΒΤ συ 12s 20:7 xvi 10,380; 35; 89,40) xvi los xvi 42 ei ee, ΧΗ 263 xxivii24 > xxvi 24s xxvii A xxvii 015 Of these, some are remarkable as bearing considerable appearance of genuineness, e. g. those in ch. xii. 10, xvi. 10: some are unmeaning and absurd, as those in ch. xiv. 19, xvi. 39. Considerable uncertainty hangs over the whole question respecting these insertions.

~ “, ὃ θεὸς " ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως “ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵμωτι, > 5 A , >? a \ \ r , Peis «ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, διὰ τὴν " πάρεσιν τ only. L.P.H. Dan. iv. 32 LXX only. (-οῦν, Exod. χχὶ. 8. Zeph. iii. 1.) m = here (ch. i. 13. Eph.i.9) only. Polyb. i. 33. 9, προθέμενοι τοὺς γροσφομάχους, see note. Phil. i. 28 only +. (Heb. 1x. δ) only. q here bis. 2 Cor. vill. 24. : ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 343 , ral Com. ἃ , Inaod, 2 ὃν προέθετο & Luke xxi. 28. ch. viii. 23. 1 = ch. vi. 11. viii. 2 al, 7 n = here 0 -- Matt. xii. 27, 28 al. p ch. i. 5 refi, there only+. (-vévat, Sir. xxiii. 2.) 25. ἱλαστηρειον F: om arm: propitiatorem D-lat vulg-sixt harl? Ambrst Oros, Jer Ambr: propitiationem vulg[-clem(with am ὅσο) F]-lat syr: placationem ΗΠ rec ins τῆς bef πιστεως, with BC3D3KL{ PJ 17 rel Chr-txt, [Bas, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Ec: om C!D'FX Orig, Eus, Bas, Cyr|[-p,] Damase Thl.—om δία πίστεως A Chr-comm(and 2-mss). for lst αὐτου, eavtov B 47. for παρεσιν, πωρωσιν 46: παραινεσιν 69. 116: [wapeoveow k:] propositum D'-lat Aug, Ambrst Pelag-comm, Swpedv] see reff.: here ‘without merit or desert as arising from earnings of our own;’ ‘gratis.’ τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι] by His grace, i. 6. ‘His tree undeserved Love,’ as the working cause (De W.). διὰ τῆς God. κιτ.λ.} By means of the propitiatory redemption which is in (has been brought about by, and is now in the Person of) Christ Jesus. ἀπολύτρω- σις, redemption by ἃ λύτρον, propitiation, —and, as expressed by the preposition ἄπο, redemption from some state of danger or misery: here,—redemption from the guilt of sin by the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's death, see reff. and Matt. xx. 28. In Eph, i. 7 this ἀπολύτρωσις is defined to = ἡ ἄφεσις τῶν παραπτωμάτων. 25.] προέθετο, not here ‘ decreed,’ as in ref, N..T.,—but put forth, set forth, manifested historically in His incarnation, sufferings, and exaltation. Wetst. quotes Thucyd. ii. 34, τὰ ὀστᾶ προτίθενται τῶν ἀπογενομένων, ‘they expose the bones of the deceased to public view.’ ἱλαστήριον] as a propitiatory offering. So we have σωτήρια, Exod. xx. 24,— χαρι- στήριον (εὐχαριστήριον A), 2 Mace. xii. 45, —and καθάρσιον, Herod. i. 35, in the sense of thank-offerings and offerings of purifi- cation (no subst., as θῦμα, need be sup- plied,—the words being themselves sub- stantives): and we have this very word in Dio Chrysos. Orat. ii. p. 184 (cited by Stuart), where he says that the Greeks offered an ἱλαστήριον τῇ ᾿Αθήνᾳ, a propiti- atory sacrifice. The ordinary interpreta- tion (Theodoret, Theophyl., Luth., Calv., Grot., Calov., Wolf, Olsh.) is founded on the sense in which the LXX use the word, as signifying the golden cover of the ark of the covenant, between the Cherubim, where Jehovah appeared and whence He gave His oracles. τὸ ἱλαστήριον πέταλον ἣν χρυσοῦν, ἐπέκειτο δὲ TH κιβωτῷ. ἑκατέ- ρωθεν δὲ εἶχε τὰ τῶν χερουβὶμ ἐκτυπώματα. ἐκεῖθεν τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ λειτουργοῦντι ἐγίνετο δήλη τοῦ θεοῦ 7H εὐμένεια . . - - τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἱλαστήριον 6 δεσπότης ἐστὶ χριστόΞ' ἐκεῖνο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν τούτου τὸν TUTOY ἐπλήρου. ἁρμόττει δὲ αὐτῷ ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ ὄνομα, οὐχ ws θεῷ ὡς γὰρ θεός, αὐτὸς διὰ τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου χρηματίζει. ἸΠπροάοτοῦ : on which Theophylact further,—éd7Aouv δὲ πάντως τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν, ἥτις πῶμα ἦν τῆς θεότητος, ἐπικαλύπτουσα ταύτην. The expression occurs in full, ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα, Exod. xxv. 17: elsewhere ἱλα- στήριον only, as ref. Heb. See also Philo, Vita Mos. iii. 8, vol. ii. p. 150. But. De Wette well shews the inapplicability of this interpretation, as not agreeing with εἰς ἔνδειξιν x.7.A. (which requires a victim, see below), and as confusing the unity of the idea here, Christ being (according to it) one while a victim (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι), and another, something else. The other interpretation (Vulg. propitiationem : so KE. V.: Beza, Rickert, al.: adj.—Rosen- miller, Wahl), which makes ἱλαστήριον an adj. agreeing with ὅν, ‘a propitiator,’ hardly agrees with προέθετο, implying an external demonstration of Christ as the ἱλαστήριον, not merely an appointment in the divine ceconomy. διὰ πίστεως] by faith, as the subjective means of ap- propriation of this propitiation:—not to be joined with ἐν αὐτοῦ αἵματι (but the omission of τῆς is no objection to this, see above on ver. 22), as Luth., Calv. al, Olsh., Riickert,—for such an expression as πίστις OY πιστεύω ἐν τῷ αἵμ. I. xp. would be unexampled,—and (which is decisive) the clause ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι requires a primary, not a subordinate place in the sentence, because the next clause, eis ἔνδ. τ. dix. αὖτ., directly refers to it. As διὰ miot,is the subjective means of appropria- tion, so ev τῷ αἵμ. αὐτοῦ is the objective means of manifestation, of Christ as a pros pitiatory sacritice. αἷμα does not = dava- τος, but refers to propitiation by blood,— the well-known typical use of it in sacrifice. εἰς ἔνδειξιν x.7.A.] in order to the manifestation of His righteousness: this is the aim of the putting forth of Christ as an expiatory victim. δικαιο- σύνη, not truth (Ambrst., al.),—not good- ' ness (Theodoret, Grot., Hammond, Koppe, 344 ΠΡῸΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. Il. A 8 , t e 4 > A u b] a a shereonlyt. ΤΩΡ Ti POYEyovoT@vV ALAPTHMAT@Y EV TH ΨΟΧΉ του 2 Macc. Xiv. Ὁ ἐς < 5 + Ἢ ete? : , Ths exon 9, θεοῦ, 28% πρὸς τὴν «ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν 29. 1 Cor. vi. w A a ow Ay x 128 \ (ὦ oe δὲ \ y - βεῖχ j Τῷ νυν KalpW, εἰς TO εἰναὺ AVUTOV OLKALOV Kat δικαι- sa. lvili. 1. = Ν , > a oe , uch ἢ ἀτοῆ. Obyra 2 τὸν ἐκ ὃ πίστεως ἃ Ἰησοῦ. “70 Tlod οὖν ἡ ° καύ- 1 Cor. vi. 5 al. w ch. viii. 18. xi. 5. 2 Cor. viii. 14 only. Gen. xxx. 20. x Acts iii. 19. vii. 19. ch. i. 11, 20 Me y ch. ii. 13 reff. z constr., ch. ii. 8 reff. a constr., ver. 22. = 1 Cor. 1. 20. c Paul (ch. xv. 17. 26. recom την, with D3KL Chr Thdrt [Euthal-ms] ΤῊ] Ge: Clem, Cyr,. (F 17 omit from du. αὐτου ver 25 to dik. αὐτου ver 26.) for δικαιουντα, δικαιουν D!. fuld Avibret. 1 Cor. xv. 31 17.) only, exc. James iv. 16. Jer. xii. 13. ins ABCD!X[P 47] om και F om inoov F 52 E-lat: for τησ., ino. xp. vulg[ with demid harl tol] copt Thdrt [Orig-int,] Ambrst Pelag{[-comm]: xp. ino. D'-lat: του Kup. nM. ing. xp. Syr: inoowy D-gr Lb dfgmol7 Clem,: txt ABCKN([P 47] am fuld D?-lat syr eth [arm Euthal-ms] Chr, ΤῊ] (ἔς Aug, Oros,. Rosenm., Reiche),—not both these com- bined with justice (Beza),—not justifying or sin-forgiving righteousness (Chrys., Aug., Estius, Krehl, B.-Crus.),—not the righteousness which He gives (Luther, Elsner, Wolf, al.), which last would repeat the idea already contained in ver. 21 and rob eis τὸ εἶναι αὐτ. δίκαιον of all meaning, —not holiness, which does not correspond to δίκαιος and δικαιοῦν, ---- but judicial righteousness, JUSTICE (as Orig., Calov., Tholuck, Meyer, Schrader, Riickert ed. 2, al.). his interpretation alone suits the requirements of the sense, and corresponds to the idea of δικαιοῦν, which is itself judi- cial. \ \ ΄ Ι οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως. ee, re ; 5 only. Exod. 98 g λογιζόμεθα % yap xxili. 2 B. h§ a 6 7 " θ i \ jz re fk 21 (only ?). ικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον ἱ χωρὶς Jépywv J νόμου. e= Actsiv.7 5) / e \ , A op 29 ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον, οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν ; vat καὶ f= ch iv.2,6 A e ς \ . ᾿ - i. 14— ἐθνῶν, 39 * εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεὸς ὃς 1 δικαιώσει περιτομὴν "ἐκ 2" ™ t \ 12 / Ν A 7 21] 7 ἘΞ and constr., πίστεως καὶ ἱ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. νόμον εἰ. xiv. 14. 11, . 13. Wisd. xv. 12. k ch. viii. 9 reff. xvii. 1}. h w. dat., ver. 24 reff. 1 Paul (ch. ii. 25. iv. 9, ἄς. i ver. 21. j ver. 20 (reff.). 1 Cor. vii. 18, 19 al.) only, exc. Acts xi. 3. Gen. 27. aft καυχησις ins σου F latt [Orig-int,] Augg. for ουχι, ουκ D!: ov F, om 2nd δια D!. 28. λογιζωμεθαι ὉΞΚ[ΡΊ. * rec οὖν (prob corrn from misunderstandg of λογιζομαι to convey a conclusion : see note), with BCD3KL[P] 17 rel syrr Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms} ΤῊ] Gic: yap ADIFR [47] latt copt [(ath arm)] Cyr[-p,] Damase [Orig- int,] Ambrst Aug, Ambr. rec moret bef δικαιουσθαι (to throw emphasis on moter, supposing the ver to convey a solemn conclusion), with KL[P]€? 17 rel syrr [arm] Chr Thdrt [Euthal-ms ΤῊ] ec]: for more: ἀνθρωπον, avOp. δια πιστεως F vulg zth [ Orig-int, Ambrst] Aug: txt ABCD! [47] (copt). αρθρωπον Β. 29. om 7 n 391] Thdrt: un Al(appy) 392 [Julian(in Cyr)]: εἰ 77: an latt [Origs int |. μονων Bab [o] 23. 39. 47-8. 76 Clem, Ath, Chr,(mss vary) Cyr ΤῊ] (but aft sovd. Clem, Ath,): wovos D: txt ACFKL[P]® 17 rel Ath, [Eus, Chr, Cyr-p(with some variation of mss) Damasc ] Thdrt Cc, tantum latt. rec aft ovx: ins δε, with L[P] 17 rel syr Chr Cyr,[-p] Thdrt ΤῊ] @c: om ABCDFK® k [47] latt Syr copt [eth arm] Clem, Ath, Chr-ms, Cyr[{-p,] Damase [Orig-int, Hil, Ambrst]. 30. rec ἐπείπερ (corrn), with D'3FKL[P]€% 17 [47-marg] rel Eus, Ath, Chr Thdrt Th! Ge: quoniam quidem l\att Ambr[{st Orig-int,]: txt ABCD?N! [47-txt Clem, Orig, Cyr;[mss vary] Did, Damasc: siquidem Jer, Pacian,. in general, which will not suit ver. 29. (So Theodoret, τὸ ὑψηλὸν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων φρό- ynua,—Chrys., Theopbyl., Gc. :—Vulg. : gloriatio tua: Bengel, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette, al.) ἐξεκλ. οὐκ ἔτι χώραν ἔχει, Theodoret. διὰ π. ν. κιτ.λ.} By what law (is it excluded) ? (is it by that) of works? No, but by the law (norma, the rule) of faith. The contrast is not here between the law and the Gospel as two dispensations, but between the law of works and the law of faith, whether found under the law, or the Gospel, or (if the case admitted) any where else. This is evident by the Apostle proving below that Abraham was justified, not by works, so as to have whereof to boast, but by faith. 28.] λογιζόμεθα, not ‘we con- clude,’ but we hold, we reckon, see reff. : the former is against Ν. T. usage; and has probably caused the change of γάρ into οὖν, by some who imagined that this verse was a conclusion from the preceding argument. For we hold (as explanatory of the verse preceding,—on the other supposition the two verses are disjointed, and the conclusion comes in most strange- ly), that a man is justified by faith [apart. from] (without [but more than without—so distinctly without as to be utterly and entirely separate from and independent of |) the works of the law (not works of law); and therefore boasting is om o D! Orig,, excluded. 29.] In shewing how completely Jewish boasting is excluded, Paul purposes to take the ground of their own law, and demonstrate it from that. He will shew that God is not (the God) of Jews alone, but of Gentiles, and that this very point was involved in the pro- mise made to Abraham, by believing which he was justified (ch. iv.), and therefore that it lies in the very root and kernel of the law itself. But, as often elsewhere, he passes off from this idea again and again, recurring to it however continually,—and eventually when he brings forward his proof-text (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε, iv. 17), Abraham’s faith, and not this fact, has become the leading subject. 30. εἴπερ] if at least (if we are to hold to what is manifest as a result of our former argument) God is One, who shall justify the circumcision (= the Jews, after the analogy of ch. ii. 26) by (ἐκ, as the preliminary condition,—the state out of which the justification arises) faith, and the uncircumcision (the Gentiles) through (by means of) their faith. Too much stress must not be laid on the difference of the two prepositions (see ver. 22 and note). The omission of the art. in ἐκ πίστ. and its expression in διὰ τῆς πίστ. are natural enough: the former expresses the ground of justification, generally taken, ἐκ πίστεως, by faith: the latter the means 940 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. IV. ¢ τῇ a Sua a [ ae , ’ νι mver.3ref. οὗ» “ καταργοῦμεν Ola τῆς πίστεως ; " μὴ γένοιτο, ἀλλα n ver. + reff. o — Heb. x. 9. νόμον ο ἱστάνομεν. see ch. vi. 13. 1 Cor. iii. 1 reff. 8. xxvi. 12. p ch. iii. 5 reff. IV.1 PT οὖν ἐροῦμεν [4 εὑρηκέναι] ᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν q = Luke ἰχ. 12. Acts νἱῖ. 11. 2 Τίπι. i. 18. Gen. vi. 81. ree tor@uev, with DSK LN3[P 47-marg] rel Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms] ΤᾺ] Ge: Γισταμεν 47-txt:] συνιστωμεν 17. 65. 93 lect-6: περιστανομεν D!: txt ABCD?FR! Orig, Cyr[-p,] Damase. Cuap. IV. 1. ree aBpaau τὸν matepa nuwy bef ευρηκεναι, with KL[P] 17 rel syrr Chr{-txt Euthal-ms] Thdrt Th] (ic Gennad Phot: om ευρηκεναι B 47! [Chr-comm, 1: ins bef αβρααμ ACDFN latt [copt eth arm] Cyr[-p, | Damase [ Orig-int, | Ambrst [aft whereby the man lays hold on justification, διὰ τῆς πίστεως, by his faith : the former is the objective ground, the latter the subjective medium. Jowett’s rendering οἱ περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως, ‘the circumcision that is of faith, though ingenious, is hardly philologically allowable, nor would it correspond to the other member of the sentence, which he rightly renders ‘ and the uncircumcision through their faith? "ΠῸ understand τῆς πίστεως (as Mr. Green, Gr. p. 300) as referring to πίστεως just mentioned ‘ by the instrumentality of the identical faith which operates in the case of the circumcised,’ is to contradict the fact: the faith was not, strictly speaking, identical in this sense, or the two cases never need have been distinguished. See BV. 1; 2. 31.] But again the Jew may object, if this is the case, if Faith be the ground, and Faith the medium, of justification for all, circumcised or un- circumcised, surely the law is set aside and made void. That this is not so, the Apostle both here asserts, and is prepared to shew by working out the proposition of ver. 29, that the law itselt belonged to a covenant whose original recipient was jus- tified by faith, and whose main promise was, the reception and blessing of the Gentiles. vopov, not ‘ daw,’ but the law, as every where in the Epistle. We may safely say that the Apostle never argues of law, abstract, in the sense of a system of precepts,—its attributes or its effects,—but always of THE LAW, con- crete,—the law of God given by Moses, when speaking of the Jews, as here: the law of God, in as far as written in their consciences, when speaking of the Gen- tiles: and when including both, the law of God generally, His written as well as His unwritten will. Many Com- mentators have taken this verse (being misled in some cases by its place at the end of the chapter) as standing by itself, and have gone into the abstract grounds why faith does not make void the law (or moral obedience); which, however true, hace no place here; the design being to shew that the law itself contained this very doctrine, and was tounded in the pro- mise to Abraham on a covenant embracing Jews and Gentiles,—and therefore was not degraded from its dignity by the doctrine, but rather established as a part of God’s dealings,—consistent with, explaining, and explained by, the Gospel. IV. 1—5.] Abraham himself was justified by faith. The reading and punctuation of this verse present some difficulties. As to the first (see var. read.), the variation in the order of the words, and the reading προπάτορα seemed to me formerly, how- ever strongly supported, to have sprung out of an idea that κατὰ σάρκα belonged to πατέρα. ‘This being supposed, εὑρη- κέναι appeared to have been transposed to throw πατέρα ju. κατὰ σάρκα together, —and then, because Abraham is distinctly proved (ver. 11) to have been in another sense the father of the faithful, πατέρα to have been altered to the less ambiguous προπάτορα, ancestor, a word not found in the N. T., but frequent in the Fathers. I therefore in the 3rd edition of this vol., with De Wette, Tholuck, and Tischendorf (in his last [7th, not 8th] edn.), retained the rec. text. Being now however con- vineed that we are bound to follow the testimony of our best Mss., and to distrust such subjective considerations as unsafe, and generally able to be turned both ways, I have adopted the reading of A(B)CDFRX &e., bracketing εὑρηκέναι as of doubtful authority, omitted as it is by B. Grot., Le Clerc, and Wetst. punctuate, τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; ebdpnk. . . σάρκα :—and Matthai, τί οὖν; ἐροῦμ. . . .- σάρκα; supplying δικαιοσύνην (or more rightly an indefinite tz) after εὑρηκέναι. But as Thol. well remarks, both these methods of punctuating would presuppose that Paul had given some reason in the preceding verses for imagining that Abraham had gained some advantage according to the flesh: which is not the case. 1. οὖν] The Apostle is here contending with those under the law from their own stand- ing-point: and he follows up his νόμον ABCDF KL[P]s abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] 1--5. ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. 547 ᾿προπάτορα ἡμῶν " κατὰ " σάρκα ; 3 εἰ γὰρ ᾿Αβραὰμ, " ἐξ rhere onlyt. ἔργων “ἐδικαιώθη, Y ἔχει καύχημα. θεόν" 3 τί γὰρ ἡ Y γραφὴ λέγει; *’Emiotevoev δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ τ Gal. vi. 4. 12, or John i. 1, 2. y ch σαρκα 47-marg |. w Paul (1 Cor. v. 6 al8.) only, exc. Heb. iii. 6. . ix. 17 reff. Ps. xxix. 8 Symm. s ch. i. 3 reff. t ch. iii. 20 reff. τύ =‘ch. xv. 11: 1 Cor. xv. 31. Deut. x. 21 al. x = Mark xii. zw. dat., GEN. xv.6. Acts xvi. 34 reff. "AAW οὐ X πρὸς rec (for προπατ.) marepa, with C23DFKL[P] &-corr! 17 rel latt syr Chr[txt and comm KEuthal-ms] Thdrt Gennad Phot ΤῊ] ec: patriarcham Syr: txt ABC!8! 3 copt 2th arm Eus Cyr{-p,] Damasce. 2. adda F. Damasc]: om ABCDIFR. 3. in δὲ yap has been written twice, but the first erased. rec ins Tov bef θεον, with D3KL[P] 17 rel Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms om de (as unneces- sary) D'F Ὁ o latt [Syr eth arm] Chr, [Euthal-ms Orig-int,] Cypr,. iotavouev, by what therefore (‘hoc con- cesso,’ ‘seeing that you and I are both upholders of the law’) shall we say, Xc. This verse, and the argument following, are not a proof, but a consequence, of νόμον ἷστ., and are therefore introduced, not with yap, but with οὖν. evpn- κέναι [if read ]] viz. towards his justifica- tion, or more strictly, earned as his own, to boast of. κατὰ σάρκα belongs to evp., not (as Chrys., Theophyl., Erasm.) to προπάτορα jp. For the course and spirit of the argument is not to limit the paternity of Abraham to a mere fleshly one, but to shew that he was the spiritual father of all believers. And the question is not one which requires any such distinc- tion between his fleshly and _ spiritual paternity (as in ch. ix. 3,5). This being so, what does κατὰ σάρκα mean? It cannot allude to circumcision; for that is rendered improbable, not only by the parallel expression ἐξ ἔργων in the plural, but also by the consideration, that circum- cision was no ἔργον at all, but a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith being yet uncircumcised (ver. 11),—and by the whole course of the argument in the present place, which is not to disprove the exclusive privilege of the Jew (that having been already done, chs. ii. iii.), but to shew that the father and head of the race himself was justified not by works, but by faith. Doubtless, in so far as circumcision was a mere work of obedi- ence, it might be in a louse way considered as falling under that category : but it came after justification, and so is chronologically here excluded. κατὰ σάρκα then is in contrast to κατὰ mvedua,—and refers to that department of our being from which spring works, in contrast with that in which is the exercise of faith : see ch. viii. 4, 5. 2.| For if Abraham was [not ‘were’ as Εἰ. V.] justified (assuming, as a fact known to all, that he was justified by some means) by works, he hath matter of boasting (not expressed here whether in the sight of men, or of God, but taken generally : the proposition being assumed, | ‘He that has earned justification by works, has whereof to boast’). Then, in disproof of this,—that Abraham has matter of boasting,—whatever men might think of him, or attribute to him (6. g. the per- fect keeping of the law, as the Jews did), one thing at least is clear, that he has none before God. (πρός, probably as in the second ref., with, in the sense of chez : apud Deum.) This we can prove, (ver. 3) for what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God (God’s promise) and it (τὸ πιστεῦσαι) was reckoned (so LXX. Heb., ‘He reckoned it’) to him as (ch. ii. 26) righteousness. The whole question so much mooted between Protestants on the one hand, and Romanists, Arminians, and Socinians on the other, as to whether this righteousness was reckoned (1) ‘ per fidem, being God’s righteousness imputed to the sinner; or (2) ‘propter fidem,’ so that God made Abraham righteous on account of the merit of his faith, lies in fact in a small compass, if what has gone before be properly taken into account. The Apostle has proved Jews and Gentiles to be all under sin: utterly unable by works of their own to attain to righteous- ness. Now faith, in the second sense mentioned above, is strictly and entirely ὦ work, and as such would be the efficient cause of man’s justification,—which, by what has preceded, ἐέ cannot be. It will therefore follow, that it was not the act of believing which was reckoned to him as a righteous act, or on account of which perfect righteousness was laid to his charge, but that the fact of his trusting God to perform His promise introduced him into the blessing promised. God de- clared his purpose (Gen. xii. 3) of blessing all the families of the earth in Abraham, and again (Gen. xv. 5) that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, when as yet he had no son. Abraham believed this promise, and became partaker of this blessing. But this blessing was, justifica- tion by faith in Christ. Now Abraham could not, in the strict sense of the words, be justitied by faith ἐν Christ,—nor is it ‘ κῷ 348 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS IV. ~ ~ \ - > A , , A a=chixs TO θεῷ, καὶ ὃ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ 5 εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 4 τῷ δὲ siz” > ῥργαζομένῳ 6° μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται ἃ κατὰ ἃ χάριν, ἀλλὰ τιον 1:22. εργα ee Οο΄μισῦος OV AOYLCETAL “ κατα χάριν, AANA 8. ev. 31. \ > 5 a \ \ ? , ΄ binol, Acts Κατὰ © ὀφείλημα" ὃ τῷ δὲ μὴ ἢ ἐργαζομένῳ, ' πιστεύοντι δὲ mare hone: Oe \ g BS A 4 h 2 ἥν τς Xx / ς / c ay: ee A bb of ome TOV ἀσεβῆ, ᾿ογίξεται ' ω) ἜΤΙ τὰ Gta αὐτοῦ ὃ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 8‘ καθάπερ καὶ Δαυεὶδ 1 λέγει τὸν xxxi. 7. ἃ ver. 16. e = here (Matt. vi. 12) only. Deut. xxiv.10. Thue. ii. 40, (-λή, ye ae: 7.) f ver. 24. Acts ix. 42. xi. 17. see Matt. xxvii. 42 νυ. r. g ch. ii. 13 reff. .6. 1Tim.i. 9. 1 Pet. iv. 18. 2 Pet. ii. 5. iii. 7. Jude 4, 15 (bis) only. Prov. xxi. 30. (Beas, ch. i. 18.) "7 Paul (ch. xii. 4. 1 Cor. xii. 12 418.) only, exc. Heb. iv. 2. Lev. xxvii. 8 only (?). see Heb. v. j = John viii. 27, Phil. iii. 18. 4. rec ins To bef οφειλημα (appy as agreeing better with the idea of a definite obliga- tion incurred: ἃ. 6. = τὸ ὀφειλόμενον, “ what is due from the employer,’ as indeed Bloomf. explains it): om ABCDFKL{[P JX rel [arm]. B! repeats from ὁ pic8o* to epyaCouerw, ver 5, but the passage is marked for erasure, except the first o. δ. ασεβην DIFR. 6. for καθαπερ, καθως DF. necessary to suppose that he directed his faith forward to the promised Redeemer in Person; but in so far as God’s gracious purpose was revealed to him, he grasped it by faith, and that righteousness which was implied, so far, in it, was imputed to nim. Some have said (Tholuck, e. g.) that the parallel is incomplete —Abraham’s faith having been reckoned to him for righteousness, whereas, in our case, the righteousness of Christ is reckoned to us as our righteousness, by faith. But the incompleteness lies in the nature of the respective cases. In his case, the righteous- ness itself was not yet manifested. He believed implicitly, taking the promise, with all it involved and implied, as true. This then was his way of entering into the promise, and by means of his faith was bestowed upon him that full justifica- tion which that faith never apprehended. Thus his faith itself, the mere fact of implicit trust in God, was counted to him for righteousness. But though the same righteousness is imputed to us who believe, and by means of faith also, it is no longer the mere fact of believing implicitly in God’s truth, but the reception of Christ Jesus the Lord by faith, which justifies us (see vv. 23—25 and note). As it was then the realization of God’s words by faith, so now: but we have the Person of the Lord Jesus for the object of faith, explicitly revealed: he had not. In both cases Justification is gratuitous, and is by faith: and so far, which is as far as the argument here requires, the parallel is strict and complete. 4. τῷ epyalon. | (q. ἃ. τῷ ἐργάτῃ, but the part. is used because of the negative τῷ μὴ épyat. fol- lowing)—to the workman (him that works for hire, that earns wages, compare mpos- npydoaro, Luke xix. 16) his wages are not reckoned according to (as a matter of) grace (favour), but according to (as a matter of) debt. The stress is on xara ins o bef δανειδ DF [g]. χάριν, not on λογίζεται, which in this first member of the sentence, is used hardly in the strict sense, of imputing or reckon- ing, but of allotting or apportioning :— its use being occasioned by the stricter λογίζεται below. And the sentence is a general one, not with any peculiar refer- ence to Abraham,—except | that after κατὰ χάριν we may supply ὡς τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ, if we will ; for this is evidently assumed. ὅ.} But to him who works not (for hire, —is not an ἐργάτης looking for his μισθός) but believes on (casts himself in simple trust and humility on) Him who justifies (accounts just, as in ver. 3) the ungodly (‘¢mpious : stronger than ‘ unrighteous :’ —no allusion to Abraham’s having for- merly been in idolatry,—for the sentence following on ver. 4, which is general and of universal application, must also be general,—including of course Abraham : ἀσέβεια is the state of all men by nature), —his faith is reckoned as righteousness. κατὰ χάριν is of course implied. 6—8.| The same is confirmed by a passage JSrom David. This is not a fresh example, but a confirmation of the assertion involved in ver. 5, that a man may believe on Him who justifies the ungodly, and have his faith reckoned for righteousness. The applicability of the text depends on the persons alluded to being sinners, and having sin not reckoned to them. ἀσεβεῖς und λογίζομαι are the two words to be illustrated. The Psalm, strictly speaking, says nothing of the imputation of righteousness,—but it is implied by Paul, that the remission of sin is equiva- lent to the imputation of righteousness— that there is no negative state of innocence —none intermediate between acceptance for righteousness, and rejection for sin. 6. λέγ. Tov pax. | pronounces the blessedness, ‘the congratulation:’ in allusion perhaps to the Heb. form, "γῶν ‘(O) the blessings of, .... It is ABCDF K: [PIN abcdf ghkl mnolj [47] 4---1}. ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ, 949 k \ ree | 0 /, 5 \ l / , δ μακαρισμὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ᾧ ὁ θεὸς ' λογίζεται δικαιοσύ- k here bis. νὴν ™ χωρὶς ἔργων, 7 Μακάριοι ὧν " ἀφέθησαν αἱ ° ἀνομίαι Ni aes ΄, θ ες , Kat ὧν Ῥ ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. οὐ μὴ ' λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν. Ὁ q 5 \ \ , r x \ q 3 \ \ 5 > οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομήν, "ἢ καὶ “ ἐπὶ τὴν ὃ ἀκροβυ- / / \ σ ] ᾽ i θ A "A \ ΄ 7 στίαν ; λέγομεν γὰρ ὅτι | ἐλογίσθη τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἡ πίστις lets δικαιοσύνην" 10 πῶς οὖν | ἐλογίσθη; " ἐν περιτομῇ Gal. iv. 15 only t. 1 ver. 3. 8 ΠῚ tos ἃ Η ΜΞ iii. 21 or ur ρ ae “ n = Matt, vi " 12. xii. 31: O “μακαρισμος οὖν ΚΝ 39. Isa. xxii. 14. Psa. xxxi. 1. o = Matt. vii. 23. xiii. 41. ch. vi. 19 al. Exod, xxxiv. Ρ here only, / A“ ’ ὄντι, ἢ *év SaxpoBvotia; οὐκ ‘ev περιτομῇ, ἀλλ᾽ * ἐν 1c. Gen. 8 > / 1l \ u a + ν r Ww ἀκροβυστίᾳ. 11 καὶ ἃ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν " περιτομῆς, ἡ σφρα- n a ’ A / a > A > / yida τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς " πίστεως τῆς ἡ ἐν TH " ἀκροβυστίᾳ, reff. Mark ix. 12, 13. t = ch. iii. 19 reff. neb. vii, 13, ii. 19. Rev. v. 1 all2.) only. (Hagg. ii. 24.) 7. for emex., εκαλυφθησαν B?. u = Matt, xxvi. 48. 1 Cor. xiv. 22. apposit., Acts iv. 22. 2Cor. v.5. Col. iii. 24. Winer, edn. 6, ᾧ 59. 8, a, vii. 19 A &c., 20 A Ed-vat. compl. (B def.) (-vuma, 1 Pet, ii. 16.) q = Acts iv. 33 8 ch. iii. 30 reff. Vv constr., gen. of w = 1 Cor. ix. 2 (2 Tim, r 1 Cor. ix, 8 reff. GEN. &vii, 11. 8. for @, οὗ (so LxyxX-ABN!) BD!GRNI: txt (so rxx-edd &32) ΑΟΌΞΕ ΚΙ ΡΊΝ 8. rel {Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc}. 9. [autos F*(not G: -τους F!).] (not am demid fuld) Ambrst. om ott BD! [47]. λογισεται K[ P] n 17 [ Euthal-ms]. aft περιτομὴν ins μονον D [vulg-clem ] harl! for 2nd em, εἰς C: om 29. 33: om em τὴν a, om ἡ πιστις Καὶ : ims aft δικαιοσ. 17. 62. 10. om οντι F vulg(not fuld!) D%-lat [Syr] Cyr,. 11. περιτομὴν AC! [m-marg-corr(sic Treg) 47 arm] syrr Orig-schol[and int, ] Chr, Procop, Damase : txt BC?-DFKL[PjX 17 rel latt copt Orig-c Chr, Cyr,[-p] Thdrt ΤῊ] (Ec [Euthal-ms Ambrst ]. Ts (bef dix.) A. very clear that this righteousness must be χωρὶς ἔργων, because its imputation con- “sists in the remission and hiding of offences, whereas none can be legally righteous in whom there is any, even the smallest offence. 8.] ov μὴ λογίσηται, as the same construction usually in the N. T., is Suture (Winer, edn. 6, § 56. 3), and must be referred to the great final judgment. Or we may say with Olsh. that the ex- pression is an O. T. one, regarding sin as lying covered by the divine long-suffering till the completion of the work of Christ, at which time first real forgiveness of sins was imparted to the ancient believers; compare Matt. xxvii. 53; 1 Pet. iii. 18. In this last view the future will only refer to all such eases as should arise. 9—12.| This declaration of blessedness applies to circumcised and uncircumcised alike. For Abraham himself was thus justified when in UNCIRCUMCISION, and was then pronounced the father of the Faithful, uncireumeised as well as circum- cised, μακαρισμός of course includes the fact, on account of which the con- gratulation is pronounced,—the justifica- tion itself. 9. ἐπί sc. λέγεται, see reff. The form of the question, with ἢ kal, presupposes an affirmative answer to the latter clause ; which affirmative answer is then madethe ground of the argumenta- tion in vy. 10, 11, 12:—On the uncir- aft σψραγιδα ins δια Εἰ: om τη DF Ὁ co Procop Damase, Tns περιτομή L. om cumcision (-cised) also. For we say, ἄς. The stress is on τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ, not on ἢ πίστις : for we say that 10 ABRAHAM faith was reckoned for righteousness. 10.1 πῶς, under what circum- stances? ‘The interval between the re- cognition of his faith (Gen. xv. 6) and his circumcision, was perhaps as much as | twenty-five, certainly not less (Gen. xvii. 25) than fourteen years. 11.] And he received (from God) the sign (token, or symbol) of circumcision (gen. of apposition, see reff. The reading rep:touhy appears to have been an alteration on account of σφραγῖδα following), a seal (the Targum on Cant. iii. 8, cited by 'Tholuck, has the expression, ‘ the seal of circumcision,’ and in Sohar, Levit. vi. 21, it is called ‘a holy sign.’ So also Baptisin is called in the Acta Thome, ὃ 26, ἡ σφραγὶς τοῦ λουτροῦ, and elsewhere in the Fathers simply 7 σφραγίς. Grabe, Spicil. Patr. i. 333) of the righteousness (to stamp, and certify the righteousness) of the faith (gen. of apposition (but not zz appos. with dik. by construction),—‘ of the righteousness which consisted in his faith,’—not, ‘ of his justification by faith: the present argument treats of faith accounted as righteousness) which was (or, ‘which he had : τῆς may refer either to dix. or to ricr.,—but better to the former, because the object is to shew that the righteous. 350 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS TM. xActsiii,19. Σ εἰς TO εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων ὃ δι᾿ ABCDP vii. 19. ver. ] ΚΙΓΡῚΝ 8. chil, 5 ἀκροβυστίας, " εἰς τὸ ᾿ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς τὴν δι- avcat τ τας , - : : ghkl | oe καιοσύνην, 13 καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς τοῖς οὐκ ὃ ἐκ © περι- τὰ πο 11 b = ch. ii. 8 A , ᾽ \ \ nw ad a n e ΡΥ [47] ff. Jr ς Τομῆς μονον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς “ στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς “ἴχνεσιν reff. a t.2 ee 8 / / af \ Ξε a f’°AB , a a hets xxi, Τῆς “ἐν ἢ ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ ἡ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ραὰμ Gal. v. 25. 13 5) \ \ , es / a? Ν BY a t vi. 16. Phil. 18 οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ “ABpaap ἢ TO ὃ σπέρ- ili. 16 only. e Eccles. xi. 5 only, but not =. 42. 7. (dat., ch. xiii. 13.) f Acts vii. 2 reff. e 2 Cor. xii. 18. 1 Pet. ii. 21. Sir. xxi. 6. ἴχνη τῆς ἀληθείας, Polyb. iv. g ch. i. 3 reff. for δι, δια AD'F L[e sil]: txt BCD?:3 [Ke sil) ῬῚΝ rel [Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc ]. om καὶ ABN?! [47] a demid tol [copt] Orig-schol Cyr[-p,] Damase: ins CDF K L[ P83 17 rel latt syrr eth [arm Orig-int, | Thdrt ΤῊ] Gc. Damasc]: for τὴν, εἰς A ἃ 32 [47] 114-24 Syr, ad justitiam vulg D*-lat ἃ Orig-int, ] Ambrst Pelag Aug. 12. om τοις ovr ex mepitouns (homeot) N1(ins X-corr!). rec ins τῇ bef ακροβυστια, with D3KL{ P] rel tantur F : τυχουσι 1 m(m!, Treg). | om τὴν C?D! ἐξ (crm x-lat{ (tn 7.) [στοιλουσειν qui sec- Chr, { Euthal-ms] Thdrt ΤῊ] : om ABCD'FRalcfhlmn [47 Cyr-p] Procop, Damase.— τὴς mort. THs εν (τη) akpoB. DKL [ P(t. π. τοι5}} abe f(g) hk1ln ο 17 vulg(not am fuld harl') [Euthal-ms] Thdrt lat-ff: om πιστεως N1(ins X-corr!). 13. om ἡ N}(ins X-corr!). ness was imputed in uncircumcision) during his uncircumcision. In literal historical matter of fact, Abraham received circum- cision as a seal of the covenant between God and him (Gen. xvii. 1—14). But this covenant was only a renewal of that very one, on the promise of which Abraham's faith was exercised, Gen. xv. 5, 6,—and each successive renewal of which was a fresh approval of that faith. The Apostle’s point is,—that the righteousness was reckoned, and the promise made, to Abraham, not in circumcision, but in uncircumeision. εἰς τὸ εἶναι... .7 In order that he might be (not ‘so that he is;’ see Gal. iii. 7) the father of all in uncircum- cision (διά, see reff.,—‘ conditionis’) that believe. Abraham is the Sather of the faithful. But the triumph and recoguition of that faith whereby he was constituted so, was not during his circumcision, but during his uncircumcision :—therefore the faithful, his descendants, must not be confined to the circumeised, but must take in the uncircumcised also. On πατέρα in this sense, Tholuck compares the ex- pression Gen. iv. 20; 1 Mace. ii. 54 (Φινεὲς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ ζηλῶσαι (ζῆλον), and Maimonides, ‘ Moses is the father of all the prophets who succeeded him.’ See also our Lord’s saying, John viii. 37, 39. The Rabbinical book Michlal Jophi on Mal. ii, (Thol.) has a sentiment remarkably coincident with that in our text: “ Abraham is the father of all those who follow his faith.” εἰς TO Aoy. «.7.A.] (is in fact parenthetical, whether brackets are used or not; for otherwise the construction from the former to the Jatter πατέρα would not proceed) in erder that the righteousness (which Abraham’s faith was reckoned as being,—the righteousness of God, then hidden though imputed, but now revealed in Jesus Christ) might be imputed to them also. 12. καὶ (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν) πατέρα περιτομῆς ... .] And (that he might be) father of the circumcision (the circumcised) to those (dat. commodi ‘ for those,’ ‘in the case of those’) who are not only (physically) of the circumcision, but also who walk (the inversion of the article appears to be in order to bring out more markedly τοῖς ἐκ περιτ. and τοῖς στοιχ. »— who are not only vi ἐκ mepit., but also of στοιχοῦντες ... .) in the footsteps (reff.) of the faith of our father (speaking here as a Jew) Abraham (which he had) while he was in uncircum- cision. (The art. would make it ‘ during his uncircumcision,—but the sense is better without it, the word being general- ized.) 13—17.] Not through the LAW, but through THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH, was THE INHERITANCE OF THE WORLD promised to Abraham: so that not only they who are of the law, but they who follow Abraham's faith aie HEIRS OF THIS PROMISE. 13.] γάρ, strictly for. The argumentation is an expansion of πατέρα πάντ. τῶν πιστευόντων above. If these believers are Abraham’s seed, then his promised inheritance is ἐλθὲ). διὰ νόμου | not, ‘under the law,’—uor, ‘ by works of the law * —nor, ‘by the righteous- ness of the law: but, through the law, so that the law should be the ground, or efficient cause, or medium, of the promise. None of these it was, as matter of histori- cal fact. For not through the law was the promise (made) to Abraham, or (# in negative sentences answers to καί in affirm., see Matt. v. 17) to his seed, viz. that he should be heir of the world, but by the righteousness of faith. ‘This specifica- 12—16. >) ματι αὐτοῦ, ὃ ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. τὸ ἱκληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἷναι κόσμου ΡῚ 351 2 A ᾿ ἀλλὰ ἢ ΤΟ w. inf., 1 Thess. iii. ES \ BS , , 14: 2 x © b? t i / 3 la OLKALOTUVNS πίστεως, ** εἰ γὰρ OL > EK νόμου * KANPOVO= ; > nie 5.7, Γ ΄ / μοι, Ἰ κεκένωται ἡ πίστις Kal * κατήργηται ἡ ἐπαγγελία. 15 «ς \ , ] ὁ γὰρ νόμος “ IO \ n / νόμος, οὐδὲ " παράβασις. k ch, iii. 3 reff. James i. 3 al. Wisd. xiv. 31 only. xiv. 2. xv. 9 only.) 8,13. 2 Cor. iv. 17. 15 only. Ps. c.3. 20, 30 al. [εἰναι bef αὑτὸν Καὶ n 17. | 16 διὰ τοῦτο 5 ἐκ πίστεως, ἵνα n absol., ch. v. 14. w. gen.,ch. ti. 28. 2 Macc. xv. 10 only. Heb. i. 2. Viv 17. ΕΠ 20 James ii. 5. >] A / ’ a = ὀργὴν ™ κατεργάζεται. οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν. Micah i. 15. = τ Οὐ iyi. ix. 15. 2Cor. ix. 3 (Phi 11. 7) only. (Jer. m — ch. v. 3. Vii. 1 Tim. ii. 14, Heb. ii. 2. ix. o = ch. iii. 1 = ch. ii. 5, 8 reff. Gal. iii. 19. ] rec ins tov bef κοσμου, with KL[P] 17 rel [ Euthal-ms ] Thdrt Thl @e: om ABCDFR ἃ [47 arm] Damase. for δια δικαιοσυνη, δικαιο- συνην F[-gr: om δια a2 6]. (διακαιοσυνης G!.) 15. for ov, που [F |G! [arm]. rec (for δε) yap (see note), with DF KL[P ]&3 rel latt syrr Chr(ot: o vou. for o yap ν. above) (Ec [ Kuthal-ms Orig-int,] Ambrst Aug,: txt ABCN! syr-mg copt [arm Cyr-p,] Thdrt ΤῊ] [Damasce Orig-int,] Julian Ambr,. παραβασεις (ttacism) A ΕἾ -gr]}. 16. aft morews ins τηἡσου D}(and 1401). tion of the promise has perplexed most of the Commentators. The actual promise, Gen. (xii. 2, 3) xiii. 14—17; xv.18; xvii. 8, was the possession of the land of Ca- naan. But the Rabbis already had seen, and Paul, who had been brought up in their learning, held fast the truth,—that much more was intended in the words which accompany this promise, ‘In thee (or in thy seed) shall all families of the earth be blessed,’ than the mere possession of Ca- naan. They distinctly trace the gift of the world to Abraham to this promise, not to the foregoing. So Bemidbar Rabb. xiv. 202. 3 (Wetst.),—‘ Hortus est mundus, quem Deus tradidit Abrahamo, cui dictum est, “et eris benedictio”’ (see other citations in Wetst.). The inheritance of the world then is not the possession of Canaan merely (so that κόσμου should = ys) either literally, or as a type of a better posses- sion,—but that ultimate lordship over the whole world which Abraham, as the father of the faithful in all peoples, and Christ, as the Seed of Promise, shall possess: the former figuratively indeed and only impli- citly,—the latter personally and actually. See ch. viii 17; Matt. v. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 24, Another difficulty, that this promise was made chronologically before the reckoning of his faith for right- eousness, is easily removed by remembering that the (indetinite) making of the promise is here treated of as the whole process of its assertion, during which Abraham’s faith was shewn, and the promise continually confirmed. αὐτόν includes his seed. 14 | The supposition is now made which ver. 13 denied,—and its consequences shewn. For if they who are of the law (who belong to the law, see reff.: not, ‘who keep the law,’ nor is δίκαιοι to be supplied) are inheritors (i. 6. inherit ‘ejyus rei causa,’ by virtue of the law: they may be inheritors by the righteous- aft wa ins ἡ A 45. 80 arm. ness of faith, but not quoad their legal standing), faith is (thereby) made empty (robbed of its virtue and rendered use- less), and the promise is annulled (has no longer place). Howandwhyso? ‘The Apostle himself immediately gives the rea- son. 15.] For the law works (brings about, gives occasion to) wrath (which from its very nature, excludes promise, which is an act of grace,—and faith, which is an attribute of confidence) ;—but where (or, for where ; but I should regard yap as introduced to suit the idea of the second clause rendering a reason for the first) there is no law (lit. ‘where the law is not’), neither (is there) transgression. ‘We should rather expect (says De W.) the affirmative clause, “ And where the law - is, there is transgression :”’ but the negative refers to the time before the Mosaic law, when there was no transgression and there- ferealsonowrath. Yes; but not because there was no transgression then; the pur- pose of the Apostle here is not to deny the existence of the law of God written in the heart (which itself brings in the knowledge of sin) before Moses, but to shew that no promise of inheritance can be by the law, because the property of the law is, the more it is promulgated, to reveal transgression more,—znot to unfold grace. So that com- paratively (see notes on ch. vii.) there was no transgression before the law of Moses ; and if we conceive a state in which the law ‘whether written or unwritten should be altogether absent (as in the brute creation), there would be zo transgression whatever. But observe (see ch. v. 12—14) that this reasoning does not touch the doctrine of the original taint of our nature in Adam,—only referring to the discrimination of acts, words, and thoughts by the conscience iz the light of the law: for παράβασις is not xatural corruption, but an act of transgression ; nor does the Apostle here B52 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. IV. / > Ν 3 pver.d.ellirs, Ρ κατὰ χάριν, eis τὸ εἶναι ᾿ βεβαίαν τὴν " ἐπαγγελίαν Gal. ii. 9. ν. 13. \ a , > a wn , , % παντὶ τῷ ' σπέρματι, OV τῳ " ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον, ἀλλὰ ver. 11 reff. 22 Cor. iT. \ Au2 , f? ΄ e 3 f \ ΄ Heb. ii. 2. Kal TW EK WLOTEWS Αβραάμ, OS ἐστιν “ TATHP παντων ri (ὀΥ τὰς ἢ δν 17 θὰ , τος ͵ aioe Tes 7. 2 Pet. NUWV (κα ως YEeypaTrTal ᾿οτι πάαάτερα “πὸ ων εὔνων 10, 19 only +. , , ͵ ensue x a 10, Woonlyt; τ τέθεικά σε) * κατέναντι " οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ, τοῦ * Cwo- only. a \ \ \ κα \ cActsitref. ποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς Καὶ * καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς u ch. ii. 8 reff. γ GEN. xvii. 5. w=1Tim.ii.7. 2 Tim.i.11. Heb.i.2. 2 Pet.ii.6. Jer. i. 5. x = 2 Cor. ii. 17. xii. 19 (Mark xi. 2} L.{Mt. and Matt. xxvii. 24, v. 1.) xii. 41. xiii. 3) only. Exod. xxxii.11 A Ald. (Num. xxv. 4.) y attr., Luke i. 4. Winer, edn. 6, ¢ 24. 2. Ὁ. z John v. 21. ch. viii. 11. 1 Cor. xv.22al. 4 Kings v. 7. a see note, and Isa. xli. 4. xviii. 13, 4 Kings viii. 1 .2). τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι, Philo de Creat. Princ. ᾧ 7, vol. ii. p. 367. aft vowov ins eorw D4. om povoy and και F(and lat) 91 D-lat : om καὶ fuld harl?. 17. emorevoas F, credidisti vulg-mss(demid flor fuld tol, besides F-lat) D-lat Syr Ambrst Vig Pelag ; eredent eth: emorevoay D)-gr. deny the former, even in the imaginable total absence of the law of God. 16. | For this (viz. the following) reason it (the inheritance,—not the promise; the pro- mise was not strictly speaking ἐκ πίστεως : ——-nor must we supply ¢hey, meaning the heirs, who although they might fairly be said to be ἐκ πίστεως (compare οἱ ἐκ νόμου above, and reff.) could hardly be without harshness described as being κατὰ χάριν) was by faith that it might be (strictly the purpose ;—not, ‘so that it was’) according to grace (free unmerited favour. As the law bringing the knowledge of guilt, works wrath,—so the promise, awakening faith, manifests God’s free grace,—the end for which it was given) ; in order that the promise might be sure (not, ‘so that the promise was sure :’ this was the result, but the Apostle states this: as the aim and end of the inheritance being by faith, —quoad the seed of Abraham,— that they all might be inheritors,—as the manifestation of God’s grace was the higher aim and end) to all the seed, not only to that (part of it) which is of the law (see ver. 14), but to that which is of the faith (walks in the steps of the faith, ver. 12) of Abraham (it is altogether wrong to make *ABpadu depend on σπέρματι expressed or understood, as (cum., Koppe, and Fritzsche). The part of the seed which is of the law here is of course confined to believing Jews; the seed being believers only. This has been sometimes lost sight of, and the whole argument of vv. 13—16 treated as if it applied to the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law, a point already proved, and now presupposed,—the present argument being an historical and metaphysical one, pro- ceeding on the facts of Abraham’s history, and the natures respectively of the law and grace, to prove him to be the father of all believers, uncircumcised as well as cireum- cised, ὅς ἐστὶν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν [θεω ΚΕ] By the last declaration, the paternity of Abraham, which is co-extensive with the inheritance, has been extended to all whe are of his faith ; here therefore it is reas- serted: ἡμῶν meaning τῶν πιστευόντων. 17. καθὼς yéyp. | The words (ref.) are spoken of the numerous progeny of Abra- ham according to the flesh: but not with- out a reference to that covenant, according to the terms of which all nations were to be blessed in him. The Apostle may here cite it as comparing his natural paternity of many nations with his spiritual one of all believers: but it seems more probable that he regards the prophecy as directly an- nouncing a paternity far more extensive than mere physical fact substantiated. These words are parenthetical, being merely a confirmation by Scripture tes- timony of ὅς ἐστιν mar. πάντ. ἧμ.. with which (see below) the following words are immediately connected. κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ | The meaning appears to be, ‘ Abraham was the father of us all, —though not physically, nor in actuality, seeing that we were not as yet,—yet in the sight and estimation of God,—in his relation with God, with whom no obstacles of nature or time have force.’ The resolution of the attraction must be κατέναντι θεοῦ, κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν, as in ref. Luke, before God, in whose sight he believed. (Chry- sostom’s interpretation (and similarly Theodoret, al.),—domep 6 θεὸς οὐκ ἔστι μερικὸς θεός, ἀλλὰ πάντων πατήρ, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς. . . . τὸ γὰρ “κατέναντι᾽ ὁμοίως ἐστί,- ἀοοβ not fall in with the context, and is certainly a mistake.) τοῦ ζωοπ. τ. vexp.| Who quickens the dead,—a general description of God’s almighty creative power (see 1 Tim. vi. 13), applied particularly to the matter in hand—the deadness of generative phy- sical power in Abraham himself, which was quickened by God (but νεκρούς is a wider ABCDF KL[P]X abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] 17---19. ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΊΟΥΣ. 909 , ὄντα" 18 ὃς "παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα " ἐπ᾽ © ἐλπίδι ἃ ἐπίστευσεν, © εἰς TO d= Acts xviii 13. ch. i. 26. Acts ii. 26 , SS , a a ars γενέσθαι αὐτὸν πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ TO ‘ εἰρημένον Ἀπ σ Οὗ ” St , 19 \ ΩΣ / i a 8 Οὕτως ἔσται τὸ ᾿ σπέρμα σου, 13 καὶ μὴ ™ ἀσθενήσας ‘TH / > / fal “ πίστει, [οὐ] * κατενόησεν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα [ἤδη] | veve- thing, Luke xxiv. 26 only. 24. Isa. lvii. 1. 18. ed. ελπιδὶ CIDIF. 1 Col. iii. 5. e ver, 11 reff. h = 2 Cor. xi. 21. xiii. 9. ch. xiv. 2,21. 1 Macc. xi. 49. i Heb. xi. 12 onlyt. γενασθαι F(but not G). have been written twice, and the first erased.) (from Ps. xv. 9). ch. viii. i or. ix. 10 al. L.P. Hos. ii. 18. d w. dat. of g Gen. xv. 5, f Acts xiii. 40 reff. i k = Heb. x. ich, xiy. 1 only. (in δὲ κατα seems to (for εἰρημ., Ὑεγραμμενον K Syr. |} at end add ws a aorepes Tov ovpavou και To αμμον της θαλασσης F vulg-sixt(with flor F-lat al) some lat-ff, simly 106-8 marg ΤῊ] [demid]; sicut stelle ceili har]! G-lat; sicut arena maris fuld mar, sicut arena que est in litore maris tol. 19. ins ev bef ty more: D'F vulg-sixt(with [fuld!] F-lat) D'-lat G-lat [Orig-int (om,)] Julian. om ov (see notes) ABCR am fuld-corr Syr copt Chr,{and ms, | Damase Julian: ins DFKL[P] rel latt syr Chr,{-montf Chron,] ΤῊ] Gc Ambrst. om 737 BF [47] am(and demid harl) old-lat Syr eth Chr, Epiph, [Orig-int,]: ins ACDKL[P|® rel syr-w-ast [copt arm] Thdrt [Euthal-ms Chron, Damase ΤῊ] term than vevexpwuévov, the genus, of which that is a species). The peculiar ex- cellence of Abraham’s faith, that it over- leaped the obstacles of physical incapa- city, and nonentity, and believed implicitly God’s promise. Compare 2 Cor. i. 9. kal καλ. τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα] Much diffi- culty has been found here: and principally owing to an idea that this clause must minutely correspond with the former, and furnish another instance of God’s creative Almightiness. Hence Commentators have given to καλεῖν the sense which it has in reff., ‘to summon into being, and have un- derstood ὡς ὄντα as if it were eis τὸ εἶναι. Thus, more or less, and with various attempts to escape from the violence done to the construction, Chrys., Grot., Elsn., Wolf, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Stuart, De Wette, al. I see however in this latter clause not a repetition or expansion of the former, but a new attribute of God’s omnipotence and eternity, on which Abra- ham’s faith was fixed, Who calleth (nameth, speaketh of) the things that are not, as being (as if they were). This He did in the present case with regard to the seedof Abraham, which did not as yet exist: —the two key-texts to this word and clause being, ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα ch. ix. 7 (see note there),—and Acts vii. 5, ἐπηγγείλατο δοῦναι αὐτῷ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτόν, οὐκ ὄντος αὐτῷ τέκνου. These τέκνα, which were at present in the category of τὰ μὴ ὄντα, and the nations which should spring, physically or spiritually, from him, God ἐκάλει ὡς ὄντα, spoke of as having an existence, which word Abraham believed. And here, as in the other clause, the καλεῖν τὰ μὴ ὄντα ws ὄντα is not confined to the case in point, but is a general attribute of al] God’s words concerning things of time, past, present, and future, being to His Om- ie iF: 11 nipotence and Omniscience, all one. His purposes, when formed, are accomplished, save in so far as that evolution of secondary causes and effects intervenes, which is also His purpose. This also Abraham appre- hended by his faith, which rested on God’s absolute power to do what He had promised (see below). 18—22.] .4 more detailed description of this (Abraham’s) faith, as reposed on God’s Omnipotence. 18.] Who against hope (where there was no- thing to hope) believed in (ἐπί, with dat. in its literal import signifying close ade herence, is accordingly used to connect an act with that to which it is immediately attached as its ground or accompaniment, Thus here, the hope existed as the neces- sary concomitant and in some sense the condition of the faith) hope, in order to his becoming the father of many nations (i. e. as a step in the process of his becom- ing, and one necessary to that process going forward. He would never have become, ἄς.» had he not believed. To render εἰς τὸ γεν. ‘that he should become,’ and connect it with ἐπίστευσεν (Theophyl., Beza, all., De Wette) is against Paul’s usage, who never connects πιστεύω with a neut. mf.,—and not justified by Phil. i.23; 1 Thess. iii. 10. The mere consecutive sense, ‘so that he became,’ here, as every where, is a weaken- ing of the sense (see however note on ch. i. 20),—and besides, would introduce an objective clause in a passage which all refers subjectively to Abraham). οὕτως viz. as the stars of heaven: see l.c., —and compare Ps. exlvii. 4. 19.] The reading (with or without od?) must first be considered. Reading οὐ, the sense will be, And not being weak in faith, he paid no attention to, &c. Omitting ov, ‘And not being weak in (his) faith, he was well aware of, &c.—but did not,’ &e. Of these, the second agrees the better with εἰς de ὁ Aa 904. m here only. Gen. xvil. 17 only. n of time, here (Heb. ii. 6. iv. 4) only. o Acts viii. 16 Ε m κρωμένον, reff. p 2 Cor. iv. 10 only +. q Luke ii. 23 (from Exod. xili. 2) only. Gen. xx. 18. , ἥ constr. {Acts 7} a αν, QUTOV μόνον OTL Soph. Ant. 12. s Acts i. 4 reff. onl w Luke xvii. 18. John ix. 24. a ver. Cc}. (vulg (with fuld) join it with exarovr.) 20. om de F eth. αλλα B ΠΡΟΣ PQMAIOTS 72 = Acts x. 20 reff. of Paul, = τες Paul (Zph. vi. 10 814.) aie exc. Heb. xi. 34. Ps. li. 7 (9). γ. Acts xil. a Josh, vii. 19. j= a act., Heb. xii. 26 ΘΗ. pass., Gal. iii. 19. 2 Mace. iv, IV. 20—25. « / n Ὁ e s Ἁ \ p / EXATOVTAETNS "Tov “ὑπάρχων, καὶ τὴν P νέ- a. 4 7 τ “95- 90 ta? \ A s2 / Kpwow τῆς Iuntpas Lappas, 29 ‘eis δὲ τὴν " ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ov * διεκρίθη τῇ " ἀπιστίᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ V ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει, ἡ δοὺς * δόξαν τῷ θεῷ, 2! καὶ * πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι ὃ Y ἐπήγγελται δυνατός ἐστιν καὶ ποιῆσαι. 8 > / > “ ἃ > ὃ ΄ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ ὃ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 222810 [7 καὶ] 23 οὐκ ἐγράφη δὲ δι ὃ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ, 3: ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς, u ch. iii. 3 reff. v Acts ix. 22 Judg. vi. 4 AB(not Ed-vat. F.) ἄς. x = ch. xiv. 5 reff. only. 1 aor., James i. 12 al. z = (ch. i. 24) Phil. umapxet D}{-gr]. for eved., εδυναμωθη F [ evduy. τη]. 21. om Ist καὶ (as unnecessary : but the repetitions of ka are characteristic) D4F latt [Ambrst ]}. 22. om xa: BD'F Syr copt [arm] : ins ACD*°KL[P]X rel vulg syr Thdrt ΤῊΙ Ec { Euthal-ms Chron, Damasc, Orig-int,] Ambrst Julian Sedul. 23. μονον bef δι avrov DF latt. at end ins εἰς δικαιοσυνην D4 vulg(not am [{fuld]) Syr Chr Cyr[-p,] Thdrt(prefixing ἡ πιστις) ΤῊ] [Orig-int, ] Ambrst Sedul. τὴν ἐπ. ver. 20,—but the first very much better suits the context; the object being, to extol Abraham’s faith, not to intro- duce the new and somewhat vapid notice of his being well aware of those facts of which it may be assumed as a matter of course that he could not be ignorant. The Apostle does not want to prove that Abraham was in his sound senses when he believed the promise, but that he was so strong in faith as to be able to overleap all difficulties in its way. The erasure of ov seems to have been occasioned by the use of καί instead of οὐδέ before τὴν νέκρωσιν. And the following δέ, without being strongly adversative, falls well into its place—He took no account of, &c. but.... The rendering, ‘And he did not, being weak in faith, take account of, &c.’ (omitting οὐ, and making μή the ruling neg. particle of the clause), is ungrammatical : ov would be required. Abraham did indeed feel and express the difficulty (Gen. xvii. 17), but his faith overcame it, and he ceased to regard it. But most probably Paul here refers only to Gen. xv. 5, 6, where his belief was implicit and unques- tioning. éxatovt. | Abraham’s own expression in 1. ¢., where he also describes Sarah as being 90. His exact age was 99. Gen. xvii. 1, 24. 20.1 On δέ, see above. But with regard to (ref.) the promise of God he doubted not through unbelief—(De Wette thinks from the analogy of πιστεύειν εἴς ri,—that eis τ. ἐπ. is perhaps the immediate object of διακρίνεσθαι: α. ἃ. ‘did not disbelieve in the promise of God’), but was strong (lit. “ was strengthened,’ ‘shewed himself strong’) in faith (dat. of reference, ‘ with - regard to faith. τῇ am. and τῇ πίστ., because both are here strictly abstract, being set against one another as oppo- sites). δοὺς δόξ. τῷ θ.] viz. by re- cognizing His Almighty power (see reff., especially Luke). 21.) wAnp., see ch. xiv. 5, being fully persuaded. ἐπήγ- γελται is not passive (nor ὅ nom.), but middle, and ‘God’ the subject; that, what He has promised, He is able also to perform. 22. διό, on account of the nature of this faith, which the Apostle has now since ver. 18 been setting forth; — because it was a simple unconditional cre- dence of God and His promise. Ifwe read καί, it imports besides being thus great and admirable, it was reckoned to him for righteousness :---ἐλογίσθη, viz. τὸ πιστεῦ- σαι τῷ θεῷ. of that which is said of Abraham, to all believers on Christ. 23.] ἐγράφη. was written, not the more usual γέγραπται, ‘is written :? similarly in the parallel, 1 Cor. x. 11; and in our ch. xv. 4. The aorist asserts the design of God’s Spirit at the time of penning the words: the perfect may imply that, but more directly asserts the intent of our Scriptures as we now find them. Now it was not written for his sake alone (merely to bear testimony to him and his faith) that it was reckoned unto him,—but for our sake also (for our benefit, to bear testimony to us of the effi- cacy of faith like his. Observe that διά in the two clauses has not exactly the same sense,—‘ for his sake’ being = (1) to celebrate his faith,—and (2) for our sake = for our profit ; see on ver. 25), to whom it (i.e. τὸ πιστεύειν τῷ θεῷ, as ver. 22) shall be reckoned (for righteousness :— ABCDF KL[P]8 abcdf See hk s mnol7 [17] 23—25.| Application Vie. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 355 , / A οἷς μέλλει ὃ λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς ἢ πιστεύουσιν ὃ ἐπὶ τὸν brver-5ref. ς1 Cor. xv. 12 Ἂν / > “ \ / ~ A °eyeipavta Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν “ ἐκ νεκρῶν, % ὃς eH , \ a , an / ra : i. 2 ; ἃ παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ “ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν Kai ἠγέρθη διὰ ἐξ Ὁ \ a Eph. ν. 25. τὴν 8 δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. τὰ lil. i e ch. v. 15, ἄς h , 5. "3 ἢ : EON, ” Matt. vi. 14. V. 15} Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ὃ ἐκ πίστεως * εἰρήνην * ἔχωμεν Bai" Ps. xviii. _& ch. v.18 only$. Levit. xxiv. 22 only. k John xvi. 33. Acts ix. 31 only. 12. Ezek. xviii. 26. h ch. iii. 20 reff. f = Acts x. 40 reff. i= ch. ii. 10 reff. 24. [wearers F-gr(not G): μελλη P m!(? Ser). ] εγειροντα A. z 25. for δικαιωσιν, dixacoowny(sic) D*, δικαιοσυνην a 17. 73-7. 89}. 93 lectt-13-14 Cyr, hron,. Crap. V. 1. rec exouev, with B? F-gr [P] N-corr! rel Syr(Etheridge: see also Mehring p 457 ff) syr Did, Epiph, Cyr,[-p] Sedul: txt AB'(sic: see table) CDKLN! fh! m 17 latt(including F-lat) Syr copt [ath arm] Chr; Thdrt Damasc Thl Cc [Tit, Orig-int,; Ambrst] Pelag Oros Aug Cassiod. μέλλει Aoy. is a future, as ch. 111. 30; v. 19 (Thol.),—not, as Olsh. al., spoken as from the time and standing of Abraham), who believe on (this specifies the ἡμᾶς: and the belief is not a mere historical but a fiducial belief) Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead (the central fact in our redemption, as the procreation of the seed of promise was in the perform- ance of the promise to Abraham, see ch. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 14 ff.; and resembling it in the ζωοποιῆσαι τοὺς vexgous). 24.] ἐκ νεκρῶν is almost (see Col. ii. 12; 1 Thess. i. 10) always anarthrous, as in- deed νεκροί sometimes is (for ‘ the dead’) in classic writers, e.g. Thucyd. iv. 14; v. 10, end: and see Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 19.1. The omission may in this phrase be ac- counted for by the preposition (Middleton, ch. vi.1): but I suspect Winer is right in looking for the cause of the absence of the article after prepositions rather in the usage of the particular substantive than in any idiom of general application. 25.) Here we have another example of the alliterative use of the same preposition where the meanings are clearly different (see above, vv. 23, 24). Our Lord was delivered up (to death) for or on account of our sins (i. 6. because we had sinned) :— He was also raised up (from the dead) for or on account of our justification (i.e. not because we had been, but that we might be justified). This separate statement of the great object of the death and resurrec- tion of Christ must be rightly understood, and each member of it not unduly pressed to the exclusion of the other. The great complex event by which our justification (death unto sin and new birth unto right- eousness) has been made possible, may be stated in one word as the GLORIFICA- TION of Christ. But this glorification con- sisted of two main parts,—His Death, and His Resurrection. In the former of these, He was made a sacrifice for sin; in the latter, He elevated our humanity into the participation of that Resurrection-life, which is also, by union with Him, the life of every justified believer. So that, when taking the two apart, the Death of Christ is more properly placed in close reference to forgiveness of sins,—His Resurrection, to justification unto life everlasting. And thus the Apostle treats these two great events, here and in the succeeding chapters. But he does not view them respectively as the causes, exclusively of one another, of forgiveness and justification: e.g. (1) ch. v. 9, we are said to be justified by His blood, and 2 Cor. v. 21 God made Him sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him: and (2) 1 Cor. xv. 17, if Christ is not raised, we are yet in our sins. So that, though these great events have their separate propriety of reference to the negative and positive sides of our justifica- tion, the one of them cannot be treated separately and exclusively of the other, any more than can the negative side of our justification, the non-imputation of our sin, without the positive, the imputation of God’s righteousness. It will be seen from what I have said above that I cannot agree with Bp. Horsley’s view, that as our transgressions were the cavse of Jesus being delivered up, so our justi- fication must be the cause of His being raised again. Such a pressing of the same sense on διά is not necessary, when Paul’s manifold usages of the same pre- position are considered : and the regarding our justification (in the sense here) as a fact past, is inconsistent with the very next words, δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως, which shew that not the objective fact, but its subjective realization, is here meant.— In these words (of ver. 25) the Apostle introduces the great subject of chaps. v.— aaZz 906 1 = Acts ii. 41. xxiv. 16. 2 Cor. vii. 4. 1 John iii. 21. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. V. ] A a 0 Ν ὃ Ἁ cal f e a ᾽ A -“ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ, ᾽ Ka \ \ 2 δ οὗ καὶ THY ™rposaywyny ἐσχήκαμεν εἰς THY ™ χάριν 14: / 2 φ « / \ ’ fal mints, ταύτην ἐν ἧ ° ἑστήκαμεν, Kal P καυχώμεθα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τῆς iii. 12 onl (in both places, w. art. +. xv. 1. 2 Cor. i. 24. σι Ξϑ ν 17. 20, 21. ch. vi. 1 al. fr. p ch. ii. 17 reff. νυ. ἐπί and dat. here only. Ps, xlviii. 6. o = John viii. 44. 1 Cor, 2. rec aft ecxnkauey ins τη more (marginal gloss), with CKL{P |X? rel vulg syr copt wth-pl [arm] Chr, Thdrt [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms Damase Orig-int,] lat-ff: ἐν τη more: A X-corr!(but ev erased) 98. 124 fuld Syr Tit, Chr,: om BDF old-lat zth-rom [ Orig-int, ]. viii,—DEATH, as connected ugth SIN, —and LIFE, as connected with RIGHT- EOUSNESS. The various ramifications of this subject see in the headings below. Cuap. V. 1—11.] The blessed conse- \ quences of justification by faith. 1: It is impossible to resist the strong manu- . script authority for the reading ἔχωμεν in this verse. For indeed this may well be cited as the crucial instance of overpower- ing diplomatic authority compelling us to adopt a reading against which our subjec- tive feelings rebel. Every internal con- sideration tends toimpugnit. If admitted, the sentence is hortatory. ‘ Being then justified by faith, \et us have peace with God. (This is the only admissible sense of the first person subjunctive in an af- firmative sentence like the present. The usage is an elliptical one: ἴωμεν, ‘that we go, i.e. ‘it is time, or in an address, ‘ permit, &c. that we go.’ ἔλθωμεν ἀνὰ ἄστυ : 1]. x. 450, wp’, ἅτιν᾽ ἔργα τέτυκται. See other examples in Kihner, Gramm. ὃ 463. The delibera- tive sense, attempted to be given by Dr. Tregelles (see Kitto’s Journal of Bibl. Lit. No. xiv. p. 465 ff.) can only have place in an interrogative or dubitative clause, and every example given by Mr. Green, whom he cites for his supposed sense, as well as by Kiihner (δ 464), is of this kind. Besides, to call the sense ‘ we ought to have,’ deliberative, seems a mis- nomer.) But how can man be exhorted to have peace with God? To be recon- ciled to God, he may, 2 Cor. v. 20: but of this there is no mention here, and having (been allowed to believe in and enjoy) peace with God, depends on, not our reconciliation to Him, not any thing subjective in ourselves, but the objective fact of His reconciliation to us. If, as some say, ἔχωμεν = κατέχωμεν, Heb. x. 23, the article would be required before εἰρήνην, and (perhaps) before πρὸς or διά, Besides which there are two objections in the form of the sentence to this reading: (1) ἔχ. is coupled by xa) (δι᾽ οὗ καί) to ἐσχήκαμεν, and this connexion necessitates, in my view, that the first verb should assert a_fact, as the second undoubtedly does, With the former verbinthe subjunctive we for χαριν, χαραν A d!: xapvr(sic) m. Thus Od. x. 77,. for ex, ep D!F. aes, hardly have expected the καί where it is.{ (2) If ἔχωμεν be hortatory, καυχώ- μεθα, in verse 2, must be so likewise: (for if we were exhorted to the lesser degree of confidence, εἰρήνην ἔχειν, such exhorta- tion can hardly be founded on the existence already of the greater degree, καυχᾶσθαι k.T.A.) which, both as to sense and con- struction, is very improbable. I believe (but see below) an account of the reading may be sought, as in 1 Cor. xv. 49, in a tendency of those who transcribed some of our Mss. to give such assertions a hor/a- tory, or, where interrogative, a deliberative form: thus we have σωθησώμεθα in some Mss., ver. 10,—(jowuer, ch. vi. 2,---πισ- τεύωμεν Or πιστεύσωμεν, ANd συνζήσωμεν, ch. vi. 8, -ο-ὑπακούσατε, ch. vi. 17,—7pos- εὐξωμαι (bis), 1 Cor. xiv. 16,---πείθωμεν, 2 Cor. v. 11,--- πιστεύωμεν, John iv. 42,— συνζήσωμεν and συμβασιλεύσωμεν, 2 Tim. ἢ. 11, 12:—or perhaps the whole ground of the account to be given of the w is better shifted to a more general habit of the Mss. (even the greatest and best, see instances in prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. vi. § i. 36, 37) to confound o and @: so that in very many cases, Such variation can hardly be called a different reading at all. The whole passage is declaratory of the consequences flowing from justification by faith, and does not exhort, but assert. Nor, would it seem, does the place for exhortation arrive, till these consequences have been in the fullest and freest manner set forth,—indeed so fully and freely, that the objection arising from their supposed abuse has first to be answered. Being therefore justified (‘having been justified? —it is an act past on the Christian, not like sanctification, an abiding and increasing work) by (as the ground) faith, let us (believers in Christ: I render the existing text) have peace (‘reconcilement ;” the opposite of ὀργή, see ver. 9) with (‘in regard of,’ see reff.) God through (by means of) our Lord Jesus Christ. With regard to the nature of this peace (= state of reconciliation, ‘no more condemnation,’ as ch. viii. 1) see above, on the reading ἔχωμεν. 2.] Through whom we have also (so διὸ [καί], ch. i. 24; iv. 22, where καί, if read, serves to ABCDF ΚΙΓΡΊΝ abcdf ghkl mnol7. [47] {τ 9 δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ. ᾿ κατεργάξεται, 47 de * ἐλπίδα: δ᾽ ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶς οὐ ΠΡΟΣ ῬΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. 901 3T oy μόνον δέ, τ᾿ ἀλλὰ Kal P nao LEVOU a. ch.ii.7 Lal a“ reff. Péy ταῖς "θλίψεσιν, εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ * με da ae Vili. 23. ὑπομονὴν oer vili. 19 idea i : δοκυμήν, ἡ δὲ Y δοκιμὴ εξ μεῖς xiii " καταισχύνει, ὅτι ἡ Acts vii. t0, 1) al. 2 Kings xxii. Nah. i. 7, ΣΧ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ " ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν “διὰ * πνεύματος ton wiaaie ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡμῖν' 2 Cor. vii. 14 al. z Acts xi. 25 reff. xxviii. 16). Joel ii. 28) al. 3. aft ov wovoy δὲ ins τουτο D}{ -gr]. u ch. iv. 15 reff. 6 εἴ γε χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν Vhere bis. 9. viii. 2. ix. 13. xiii. 3, Phil. ii. 22 only +. Ps. Ixvii. 31 Symm. x = ch, viii. 39. 2 Cor. ii. w ch. ix. 33 & x. 11 (from Isa. 2 Cor, xiii. 13. y = Acts ii. 17 (from rec καυχωμεθα (mechanical repetition Srom preceding ver), with ADFK L(-v-) ΓΡΊΝ rel [vulg copt eth arm spec] Tit, Chr Thdrt ΤῊ] Me [ Orig-int, ] Cypr,: δ. for nuwy, υμων δ! txt BC Orig ὦ [Ephr, | Tert,. 6. rec (for εἰ ye) ert yap, with ACD'K[P]X rel [syr arm] Epiph, Chr, Thdrt Damasc [ Orig-int, | : yap ετι] fuld! Isid, Aug, : εἰ δε 1, Syr: shew the coherence and likelihood of that which is asserted,—answering almost to our ‘as might be expected’) had our access (the persons spoken of having come to the Father by Christ,—see Eph. ii. 18, —the access is treated of asa thing past. τῇ πίστει and ἐν TH πίστει appear to have been glosses, explanatory of the method _ of access. The access would normally take place in baptism) into this grace (namely, the grace of justification, appre- hended and held fast subjectively (from what follows) ; not, τὸ πάντων ἐπιτυχεῖν τῶν διὰ βαπτίσματος ἀγαθῶν (Chrys. al.), which is inconsistent with ἐν 7 ἑστήκ. :: not, ‘the Gospel’ (Fritz.), for the same reason ; not, ‘ hope of blessedness’ (Beza), for that follows : least of all ‘ the grace of the apostolic calling’ (Semler), which is quite beside the purpose) wherein we stand (see parallels in reff. 1 and 2 Cor.; i.e. abide accepted and acquitted with God ; see also 1 Cor. x, 12, and ch. xi. 20); and (couple to εἰρήν. ἔχωμεν, not to ἐν n ἑστήκ.) glory in the hope (xauxdouat is found with ἐπί, ἐν, περί, ὑπέρ. and (Thol.) with an acc. of the object. In Heb. iii. 6 we have τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος) of the glory of God (of sharing God’s glory by being with Christ in His kingdom, John xvii. 24, see reff.). 3.] And not only so (not only must we triumph in hope, which has regard to the future), but glory- ing in (not amidst ; the ϑλ. is the ground of triumph) [our] tribulations, knowing (because we know) that tribulation works endurance (supposing, i.e. we remain firm under it), and endurance, approval (of, our faith and trust, 2 Cor, ii. 9; ix. 15 1] not, “proof” (δοκιμασία), as Grot.; nor ‘e perience,’ as KE. V.,—‘ δοκιμή est qualit ejus, qui est Bdicysos.” Bengel,—the result of proof), and approval (fresh) hope; and hope (but for αὕτη 7 ἐλπ. as Olsh.) shames (us) not (by disappointing us; ‘ mocks us evs Tt yap D?F: ut quid enim latt Iren-int, Faustin: εἰ yap h [: εἰ txt B. not’); because God’s love (not “ the love of God, i.e. man’s love for God,—as Theodoret, and even Aug., misled by the Latin; see reff., and compare the explicit τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην eis ἡμᾶς, Which answers to this in ver. 8) is (has been) poured out (Ἢ effusa,’ not ‘diffusa’ (Vulg.), which latter word perhaps misled Aug., owing to whose mistake the true interpret: ition was lost for some centuries, although held by Orig., Chrys., and Ambrose. See Trench on St. Augustine, ch. v. Ὁ. 89 :—i. e. ‘ richly imparted ’) in our hearts (ἐν may be taken pregnantly, ἐκκέχ. eis καὶ μένει ἐν,---ΟΥ better, denotes the locality where the out- pouring takes place,—the heart being the seat of our love, and of appreciation and sympathy with God’s love) by means of the Holy Spirit (who is the Outpourer, John xvi. 14; 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10) which was given to us (Olsh. rightly refers the aorist part. to the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Spirit). ‘ Prima hee est in hae tractatione Spiritus Sancti mentio. Nimi- rum ad hune usque terminum quum per- ductus est homo, operationem Sp. Sancti notanter denique sentit.’ ᾿ Bengel. 6.] The text here is in some confusion,— see var. readd. The whole may perhaps have arisen from an ecclesiastical portion having begun χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἄσθε- νῶν ἔτι... When this found its way into the text, ἔτι was repeated. This of- fended the transcribers: but the first ἔτι could not be erased, because yap followed ; it may then have been conjecturally emended to εἰ (and γάρ to γέ as in B, or δέ as in L), or εἰς ri,—some retaining ἔ ἔτε in both places. The place of ἔτι is often, in the case of absolutes, at the beginning of a sentence, with the subject of the sen- ence between it and the word or words to which it applies ; so ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, Matt. xii. 46,---ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ μακρὰν ἄπέ- χοντος, Luke xy. 20, &c, On reconsidera- 908 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. a—icorix. ἡ ἀσθενῶν ἔτι "ἢ κατὰ καιρὸν “ὑπὲρ 4 22. see 1 Cor. 7 e , Ἢ ς “ \ , \ , a iv.10. Prov. 7 © μόλις yap “ ὑπὲρ δικαίου Tis ἀποθανεῖται. xxii. 22. Ps. evi. 12. ὃ = here only. Num. xxiii. 23. (John v. 4.) see Num. ix. 13. ς = John vi. 51. x. 15. xi. 51, 52. Luke xxii. 19 al. fr. d = ch. iv. 5 reff. 15 only +. Wisd. xiii. 6. xiv. 19 only. ich. iii. 7 reff. k Paul (here, &c., four times. Matt. vi. 30. Mark x. 48 |i L. see Heb. xii. 9, 25. if, wv, ἄς 9k e Acts xiv. 18, xxvii. 7, 8, 16. τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ‘raya τὶς καὶ ὃ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν" ὃ ἃ συν- ᾿.. “ὑπὲρ γὰρ a ΄ a“ \ \ ¢ A » , τωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν χριστὸς © ὑπὲῤ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν. aA lal / a “ (/ πολλῷ οὖν ὃ μᾶλλον ! δικαιωθέντες νῦν ' ἐν τῷ αἵματι 1 Pet. iv. 18 (from Prov. xi. 31) only. f Philem. δ: 1Cor. vi. 1 reff. h ch. iii. 5 reff. 1 Cor. xii. 32. 2 Cor. iii. 9,11. Phil. i. 23. ii. 12) only, exc. 1 Acts xiii. 39. 1 Cor. iv. 4. vi. 11. Gal. ii. 17. iii, rec (aft ac@evwv) om eri, with D3KL[P] rel [Orig-int,]: ins ABCD'FN latt Damase Iren-int [Orig-int, }. 7. μογις N1(txt N-corr!) [Orig, ]. om 2nd yap L 2. 32. 62. lect-18 : δε 238. 8. rec aft nuas ins o θεος (supplementary insertn, as is shewn by the variations in its position), with ACK[ P |X rel copt (Orig, Cyr, Euthal-ms Damase] Chr, Ge: bef eis ἡμας, DFL latt syr Dial, Chr-ms, Thdrt ΤῺ] Iren-int, [Orig-int,] Aug: [aft] de arm: transp freely Syr [eth]: om B. om et: 109 Dial,: for ert, εἰ Syr Chr, : εἰ er: D®>(and lat!) F tol [spec Orig-int, | Cypr, Hil, Aug, Pelag Ambrs* μων bef οντων L Chry. 9. om ovy D'F fuld! [demid spec] copt arm Dial, Iren-int, [Orig-int, Hil, Ambrst] Cypr, tion, however, seeing that if we follow the most ancient MSS., we must either repeat ἔτι, which seems very unlikely to have been originally written, or adopt the reading of B, I have taken the latter alternative. If, that is (on et ye, see note, 2 Cor. v. 3, and Eph. iii. 2), Christ when we were yet weak (‘ powerless for good ;’—or even stronger than that :—there seems in this verse to be a tacit reference to Ezek. xvi. See especially vv. 7, 8 of that chap. in the LXX,—ovd δὲ ἦσθα γυμνὴ καὶ ἀσχημονοῦσα καὶ διῆλθον διὰ σοῦ καὶ ἴδον σε, καὶ ἰδοὺ καιρός gov.. μου ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ ἐκάλυψα τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην σου, kal ὥμοσά σοι καὶ εἰτῆλθον ἐν δια- θήκῃ μετὰ σοῦ, λέγει κύριος), in due season (i.e. at the appointed time; compare reff. and Gal. iv. 4, and καιρός in the quotation above) Christ died for (‘on behalf of, see reff.) ungodly men (not ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, because the Apostle wishes to bring out fully by this strong antithesis, which he enlarges on in the next verses, the greatness of the divine Love to man). 1.) The great- ness of this Love, of Christ’s death on behalf of the impious, is brought out by shewing that there is none such among men, nay that such a self-sacrifice,—not unexampled where a good man, one loving his fellow-men and loved by them, is to be rescued,—is hardly found to occur on behalf of the pious and just. For hardly will any one die on behalf of a just man (masc.,—not neuter, ‘for justice’ or ‘righte- ousness sake,’ as Jer., Erasm., Luth., al. : for the matter in hand is Christ’s death on behalf of persons)—for (this second ‘for’ is exceptive, and answers to ‘but I do not press this without exception,’ understood) / \ / / » . καὶ διεπέτασα τὰς πτέρυγάς aft δικαιωθεντες ins ev (but erased) δξ!. on behalf of the good man (the art. as > a ? / ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν. apcpr ΚΙΙΓΡῚΝ abcdt ghkl mnol7 , 5 \ \ ς ὌΝ “Ὁ > ror, “ » ice [47] ἱστηῆσιν OE THV EAVTOV AYATTHV ELS NMAS, OTL ETL apap- pointing him out generally, as in the ex- / pression, ‘ the fool,’ ‘ the wise man,’ ‘ the righteous,’ ‘the wicked’) perhaps (τάχα opens a possibility which μόλις eloses) one doth even dare (i.e. is evén found to venture; the pres. implies habituality—it may occur here and there) to die. ee The distinction here made between! δίκαιος and| ἀγαθός, is also found in Cicero, de Of. 111, 15, ‘Si vir bonus is est qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini, recte justum virum, bonum non facile reperiemus.’ (But some edd. read ‘istum virum bonum.’) \ The interpretation which makes Sixatos and ἀγαθός refer to the same man, and the second clause = “1 do not say that such a thing may not sometimes occur,’ is very vapid, and loses sight of the antithesis between δίκαιος, and ἄδικος (= ἀσεβής = auapTwrds). 8.7 But (as distinguished from human examples) He (i.e. God. The omission of 6 θεός, which critical principles render necessary, is in keeping with the perfectly general way in which the contrast is put, merely with τίς, not ἀνθρώπων Tis. The subject is supplied from ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ver. 5) gives proof of (<‘ establishes’ (reff.) ;—not ‘commends’) His own love — (own, as distinguished from that of men in ver. 7) towards us, in that while we were yet (as opposed to νῦν in the next verse). sinners (= ἀσθενῶν = ἀσεβῶν [ ver. 6], and opposed to δίκαιος and ἀγαθός, ver.7 ) Christ dred for us. \' 9—11.] The Apostle fur- ther shews the blessed fruits of justifica- tion, viz. salvation, both from wrath, and with life. The argument proceeds from the beginning of the chapter: but the con- nexion, as so frequent with St. Raul, is 7—1 2, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 359 a f a a , A αὐτοῦ ™ σωθησόμεθα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ™ ὀργῆς" 10 εἰ yap m=Matt.i.21. ? Νὴ Ὁ ο , a a \ a ee a) ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ le} la a ca) / , υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, * πολλῷ " μᾶλλον ° καταλλαγέντες © σωθησό- “Ὁ A > la μεθα Ῥὲν τῇ «ζωῇ αὐτοῦ" 11 τΤοὐ μόνον δέ, 5 / 5 5 A lal \ la} / ς a ᾽ lal καυχώμενοι “ἐν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ “ ὃ 5 - A Ἀ { \ > ΄ χριστοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ νῦν τὴν ' καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν. 19 Διὰ τοῦτο ὥςπερ “du ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία " εἰ ἘΣ reff. q xi. 15. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19 only Ζ. v= WIsp. xiv. 14 (3). see Johni, 9, = 2Cor. iv. 10, 11, 12. 10. A omits from τω θεω to τω θεω ver 11. σωθησωμεθα L 9}.] 11. att ov μονον δε ins tovro D!F fuld! arm Ambrst. h m latt [(Syr) eth] arm ΤῺ] (Orig-int, Ambrst]: καυχωμεν F. immediately with the parenthetical sen- tences just preceding. Much more then (it He died for us when sinners, a fortiori will He save us now that we are righteous by virtue of that His death) having been now justified by His blood (see remarks on ch. iv. 25) we shall be saved by Him from the wrath (to come, or of which we know : force of the art.). 10.] The same is substantiated in another form: “we were enemies (see below) when He died and reconciled us: much more now that we have been reconciled, and He lives, shall we by His life be saved.’ For if, being enemies (ἐχθροί may either be active, as Col. i. 21, ‘ haters of God ;’ so ἐχθρά, ch. viii. 7; Eph. ii. 15: or passive, as ch. xi. 28,—‘ hated by God.’ But here the latter meaning alone can apply, for the Apostle is speaking of the Death of Christ and its effects as applied to all time, not merely to those believers who then lived: and those unborn at the death of Christ could not have been ἐχθροί in the active sense), We Were reconciled (καταλλάσσεσ- θαί τινι also may be taken of giving up anger against any one,—see ref. 1 Cor., and Jos. Antt. vi. 7.4, ob γὰρ ἑώρα τὸν θεὸν διαλλαττόμενον,-“-ΟΥ of being received into Javour by any one,—see 1 Kings xxix. 4, ἐν τίνι διαλλαγήσεται οὗτος τῷ κυρίῳ αὐτοῦ ; and Jos. Antt. ν. 2. 8, διαλυσά- μενος τὰς μέμψεις, καταλλάττεται πρὸς avThy,—the latter of which meanings, were received into favour with God, must for the reason above given be here adopted) to God by means of the death of His Son (this great fact is further explained and insisted on, in the rest of the chapter), much more, having been reconciled (but here comes in the assumption that the corresponding subjective part of reconcilia- tion has been accomplished, viz. justifica- tion by faith: compare 2 Cor. v. 19, 20, θεὸς ἣν ἐν χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων (Isa. ix. 5.) 2 Mace. v. 20 only. Aets ii. 40. Jer. xxxvii. (χχχ.,) 7. n Matt. iii. 7. ch. i, 18. iii. 5. r GANA καὶ oC) here dis. 1 Cor. vii. 11, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20 only ζ. (Jer. xxx. [xlviii.] 39.) Macc. i. 5. vii. 33. viii. 29 only. p = Acts xi. 14 8 ch. il. 17 reff. t (=) ch. u = Acts xxiv, 2 reff. > r ver. 3. om Ist του F(but not 6). καυχωμεθα 1, Ὁ (c ἃ -o-) om χριστου Β. ἑαυτῷ... . δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ χριστοῦ, καταλ- λάγητε τῷ θεῷ. Both these, the objective reception into God’s favour by the death of Christ, and the subjective appropriation, by faith, of that reception, are included), we shall be saved by means of His Life (not here that which he now does on our behalf, but simply the fact of His Life, so much enlarged on in ch. vi.: and our sharing in it). 11.] A further step still—not only has the reconciled man con- fidence that he shall escape God’s wrath, but triumphant confidence,—joyful hope in God. But (aber) not only so, but (fondern) glorying in God (particip. not as the finite verb, but in every case either the consequence of an anacoluthon, or find- ing its justification in the construction : so here “not only shall we be saved,” but that in a triumphant manner and frame of mind. See Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 45. 6 [a]}) through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now (not in contrast with the future glory, ‘ even now,’ as Thol., for that would be more plainly expressed,—but as in ver. 9) received (our) reconciliation (to God [not as in Εἰ. V. “ the atonement,” at least in the common theological accept- ance of the term: for that is not here treated of, but our reconcilement to God ]). 12—VIII. 39.] THE Power oF Gop (ch. i. 16) IS SET FORTH AS FREEING FROM THE DOMINION OF SIN AND DEATH, AND ISSUING IN SALVATION. 12—19.] The bringing in of RECONCILIATION and LIFE by Curist in its analogy to the bringing in of SIN and DEATH by ADAM. 12.] ‘This verse is one of acknow- ledged difficulty. The two questions meet- ing us directly are (1) To what does διὰ τοῦτο refer? (2) ὥςπερ, ‘like as,’ may introduce the first member of a comparison, the second being to be discovered ; or may introduce the second, the first having to- be discovered. 1 shal: endeavour to answer 900 ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. V. Ά Υ a \ Ν - ΄ , . ΄ acts wie, τὸν γ᾽ κόσμον Y εἰςῆλθεν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτιας oO θάνατος, xvii. 33. xxviii. 14. ch. xi. 26. 1 Cor. xi. 28. xiv. 25. x 2 Cor. i. 16 reff. y 2 Cor. v. 4. καὶ © οὕτως 5 εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους [ὁ θάνατος] * διῆλθεν i , ee Υ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. see Matt. xix. 9. Acts iii. 16. 13 2 ἄχρι γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία ἣ' 2 =ch.i. 18 al. 12. εἰς τον κοσμον bef ἡ auapria DF latt(am fuld ἄς though not vulg-ed) Ambr,. rec aft ανθρωποὺυς ins 0 θανατος (marginal gloss specifying the subj of διηλθεν, as is shewn by the varr), with ABCKL[P]X rel vulg [(Syr) Orig,(int,) Kuthal-ms Damasc] Thl (ec [Ambrst] Augarig; aft διηλθεν arm Chr, Thdrt,: bef εἰς π. a. syr-w- ast: om DF [fuld zth Orig, ] Augsepe Ambr, Pac, Leo, Bede. both questions in connexion. (1) I con- ceive διὰ τοῦτο to refer to that blessed state of confidence and hope just described : ‘on this account,’ here meaning, ‘que cum ita sint:’ ‘this state of things, thus brought about, will justify the following analogy.’ Thus we must take ὥςπερ, either (a) as beginning the comparison, and then supply, ‘so by Christ in His Resurrection came justification into the world, and by justification, lite;’ or (8) as concluding the comparison, and supply before it, ‘it was,’ or ‘Christ wrought.’ This latter method seems to me far the best. For none of the endeavours of Com- mentators to supply the second limb of the comparison from the following verses have succeeded: and we can hardly suppose such an ellipsis, when the next following comparison (ver. 16) is rather a weakening than a strengthening the analogy. We have example of this use of ὥςπερ, in Matt. xxv. 14, and of καθώς, Gal. iii. 6. Consequently (the method of God’s procedure in introducing life by righteous- ness resembled the introduction of death by sin: ‘it was’) like as by one man (the Apostle regards the man as involving generic succession and transmitting the corrupt seed of sin, not the woman: but when he speaks of the personal share which each had in the transgression, 1 Tim. ii. 14, he says, ‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression’) sin (as a POWER ruling over mankind, see ch. iii, 9, and ver. 21,— partly as a principle which exists in us all, and developes itself in our conduct, partly as a state in which we are involved ; but the idea here must not be confined (Calv.) to original sin, as it reaches much wider, to sin both original and actual: nor to the habit of sinning (as Olsh.): nor is it merely the prapensity to sin (as Rothe): nor is sin personified merely as in ch. vii. 8,11) entered into the world (not ‘esse ccepit,’ ‘primum commissa est,’ as Reiche, Fritz., and Meyer : but diteral- -ly,—‘ entered into,’ ‘gained access into,’ the moral world,—for sin involves moral ‘responsibility. So Gal. 11]. 23, πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐθλεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ‘ before the faith came in’), and by means of sin (as the ap- pointed penalty tor sin, Gen. ii. 17 ; ili. 19) death (primarily, but not only, physical death: as ἁμαρτία, so θάνατος, is general, including the lesser in the greater, 1. e. spiritual and eternal death. See ch. vi. 16, 21; vii. 10; viii. 6; 2 Cor. vii. 10), and thus (by this entering in of sin and death ; i.e. in fact, by this connexion of sin and death, as appears by ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) death (whether 6 θάν. be genuine or not, death is the subject of διῆλθεν) extended to all men (see reff. De W. well says that πάντ. ἄνθρ. differs from κόσμον, as the concrete part from the ab- stract whole, and διέρχ. from eisépxeobai, as the going from house to house differs from the entering a town. Obs., that although the subject of διῆλθεν is plainly only death, not stn and death, yet the spreading of sin over all men is taken for granted, partly in the οὕτως, partiy in the following clause), because (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, lit. of close juxtaposition : and so ‘on ground of,’ ‘on condition that, which meaning, if rightly applied, suits the case in hand. Life depended on a certain condition, viz. obedience : Death on another, viz. dis- obedience. Mankind have disobeyed: the condition of Death’s entrance and diffusion has been fulfilled: Death extended to all men, as a consequence of the fact, that,— posito, that, = because, all have sinned. Orig., Aug., Beza, and Estius render it as Vulg., ‘in quo’ (Adam): Chrys., Theo- phyl., (Ee., Elsner, ‘ propter quem : Grot., ‘per quem’) all sinned (see ch. 111. 23 :-— not ‘were sinful,’ or ‘were born in sin,’ as Calvin would restrict the meaning : δὴ, as above remarked, is here, throughout, both original and actual; in the seed, as planted in the nature by the sin of our forefather: and in the fruit, as developed by each conscious responsible individual in his own practice. So that Calvin’s argu- ment,—‘ hic non agi de actuali. peccato, colligere promptum est: quia si reatum quisque sibi arcesseret, quorsum conferret Paulus Adam cum Christo?’ does not apply, and the objection is answered by Paul himself, where he says, distinguishing between the παράπτωμα and the χάρισμα ABCDF KL[P]x abcd fs ghk 1 mnol7 [47] 13, 14. ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. 361 ᾽ ’ e / δὲ οἰ 8 5 A \ ” f ἐν KOTLW, ἁμαρτία OE οὐκ ὃ ελλογεῖται μὴ ὄντος νομοῦ, «here only. 14. ἀλλὰ ὃ ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ 4 μέχρι ~yav,Philem. 18 only +. ΒΞΞ νυ, 17, 21. h. vi. 12. M Ἂ Ν c ᾽ \ \ \ ΄ , e 5 \ A c ωυσεως καὶ “ETL TOUS μὴ αμαρτησαντας © ETL TH ¢tukei. 33 27. Gen. xxxvii. 8. e Lukei. 59. Ezraii.6l. Neh. vii. 63. xix. 14, ἃ of time, Matt. xi. 23. Acts x. 30. xx. 7. 1 Tim. vi. 14 41: Ps. civ. 19. 13. cAAoyaro A N-corr!-marg[-ra:]: ελλογείτω f, ενελογειτο (imputabatur) δξϊ ([eAoy.] 52. 108) vulg(but not am) G-lat syrr copt eth lat-ff: λελόγισται lect-19: ευλογειται 71-7. 14. (αλλα, so BD.) [ Orig-int | Jer. below, vv. 15, 16, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολ- λῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα. The παράπτωμα was not only that of one, the original cause of the entry of sin, but the often repeated sins of individual men: —nor, ‘suffered the punishment of sin,’ as Grot. and Chrys., θνητοὶ γεγόνασι). Observe how entirely this asser- tion of the Apostle contradicts the Pela- gian or individualistic view of men, that each is a separate creation from God, existing solely on his own exclusive re- sponsibility,—and affirms the Augustinian or traducian view, that all are evolved by God’s appointment from an original stock, and though individually responsible, are generically involved in the corruption and condemnation of their original. 13. ] How, consistently with ch. iv. 15, could all men sin, before the law? This is now explained. For up to (the time of) the law (= ἀπὸ ᾿Αδ. μέχρι Μωυσ. ver. 14: not ‘during the time of the law,’ as Orig., Chrys.,—rod νόμου δοθέντος,.. .. ἕως ὁ νόμος ἦν,---ΤηὩροαογοῦ,----4} allowable ren- dering of the words, but manifestly incon- sistent with the sense ;—nor, ‘as far as there was law, there was sin,’ as Dr. Bur- ton,—which is both inadmissible from the μέχρι Μωυσέως following, and would not answer to the simple matter of fact, ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ) there was sin in the world (‘ men sinned,’ see Gen. vi. 5—13 ; committed ac- tual sin: not, men were accounted sinners because of Adam’s sin; the Apostle reminds us of the historical fact, that there was sin in the world during this period) : but sin is not reckoned (as transgression) where the law is not. ἐλλογεῖται has given rise to much dispute. Very many Commenta- tors (Aug., Ambr., Luth., Melance., Calv., Beza, Riickert, Tholuck, Stuart, al.) ex- plain it of consciousness of sin by the sin- ner himself, as in ch. vii. 7: but (1) as De ’ Wette observes, this is not the natural sense of the word, which implies Two parties, one of whom sets down something to the ac- count of the other (ref.) : (2) this interpre- tation would bring in a new and irrelevant element,—for the Apostle is not speaking “an this chapter at all of subjective human consciousness, but throughout of objective for 2nd em, ev B, in similitudine (or -nem) latt Iren-int truths with regard to the divine dealings: and (3) it would be altogether inconsistent with the declarations of ch. ii. 15.— where in this sense the éAAoyiouds of sin by the νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες is distinctly asserted. Tam persuaded that the right sense of ἐλλ. is, reckoned, ‘set down as transgression, — ‘put in formal account,’ by God. In the case of those who had not the written law, ἁμαρτία is not formally reckoned as παρά- βασις, set over against the command: but in a certain sense, as distinctly proved ch. ii. 9—16, it is reckoned and they are con- demned for it. Nor is there any inconsis- tency, as Tholuck complains, in this view. Other passages of Paul’s writings support and elucidate it. He states the object of the law to be, ch. vii. 18, ἵνα γένηται καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλὺς ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς. The revelation of the law exag- gerated, brought into prominent and for- mal manifestation, the sinfulness of sin, which was before culpable and punishable, but in a less degree. With this view also agree Acts xvii. 30; ch. ii. 12, ὅσοι ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον, ἀνόμως καὶ ἀπυλοῦνται,---ἃπα iii. 25, in so far as they state an analogous case. The objection to taking οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται relatively, ‘is not fully reckoned, will hardly be urged by those who bear in mind the Apostle’s habit of constantly stating relative truths as positive, omitting the qualifying particles: see 6. g. ch. vil. 7, where with ἁμαρτίαν and with οὐκ ἤδειν both, we must supply qualifications (see notes there). 14. But (notwith- standing the last assertion that sin is not fully reckoned where the law is not) death reigned (was a power to which all suc- cumbed) from Adam to Moses (μέχρι Μωυσ. = ἄχρι νόμου above) : i. 6. although the full ἐλλογισμός of sin did not take place between Adam and Moses, the uni- versality of death is a proof that all sinned, —for death is the consequence of sin :—in confirmation of ver. 12. καὶ ἐπὶ τ. μὴ Gp.) even (notwithstanding the dif- ferent degrees of sin and guilt out of. and under, the law) over those who sinned not according to the similitude (reff.) of the TRANSGRESSION of Adam. (1) em τῷ ou. belongs to ἅμαρτ. and not to ἐβασί- 362 ἯΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. VY. f c / A g / ᾽ , “ ’ h , rachvind Γὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως ᾿Αδάμ, ὅς ἐστιν ἢ τύπος ἈΒΟΌΥ i. 23 reff.). yee / a 3 ΄ \ ἊΣ ΚΙ, ΡΝ Ε ΡΟ ref trop | μέλλοντος, 15 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς τὸ * παράπτωμα, οὕτως αὖ ἤν δὲ. a ἢ > Ν A Ae ΕΝ ἢ ghki 5 Matt. xi, KGL TO ἰχάρισμα' εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς * παραπτώματι mnoi7 ΠΟΘ τον k ch. iv. 25 reff, 1= ch. vi. 23. xi. 29. [ 15. om Ist και B [Syr copt]. λευσεν (asChrys., Theophyl., Bengel, Elsn., al.),—for that would bring in, in the words τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας, an absolute con- tradiction to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, by asserting that there were some who did not sin, (2) The emphasis lies on παρά- Baots, as distinguished from ἁμαρτία. Photius (in De W.),—6 μὲν (AS.) ὧρισ- μένην K. νομοθετηθεῖσαν ἐντολὴν παρέβη K. ἥμαρτεν οἱ δὲ ἡμάρτανον τὸν αὐτο- δίδακτον τῆς φύσεως λόγον ἐνυβρίζοντες. They all stnned : but had not, like Adam, transgressed a positive revealed command. (3) There is no reference here, as some Commentators (Beza, al.) have supposed, to the case of children and idiots,—nor (as Grot., Wetst.) to those who lived pious lives. ‘The aim is to prove, that the seed of sin planted in the race by the one man Adam, has sprung up and borne fruit in all, so as to bring them under death ;— death temporal, and spiritual ;—of these, some have sinned without the law, i. e. not as Adam did, and as those after Moses did: and though sin is not formally reckoned against them, death, the conse- quence of sin, reigned, as matter of his- torical fact, over them also. It is most im- portant to the clear understanding of this weighty passage to bear in mind, that the first member of the comparison, as far as it extends, is this: ‘ As by Adam’s trans- gression, of which we are by descent in- heritors, we have become (not by imputa- tion merely, but by propensity) s¢nners, and have thus incurred death, so &e.’ ..... (see below). ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τ. μέλλ.] who is ἃ figure (or type: not thus used by ~LXX, see Umbreit’s note) of the future (Adam [the second Adam, viz. Christ ]). This clause is inserted on the first mention of the name Adam, the one man of whom he has been speaking, to recall the purpose for which he is treating of him,—as the figure (ref.) of Christ. τοῦ péAX., not ‘qui futu- rus erat,’ as Beza [and E. V.], Reiche; but spoken from the Apostle’s present standing, ‘who is to come.’ The fulfilment of the type will then take place completely, when, as 1 Cor. xv. 22, ἐν τῷ χριστῷ πάντες ζωο- ποιηθήσονται. Still less, with Koppe, can ὅς be taken by attr. for 6, and τοῦ μέλλοντος be interpreted ‘ of that which is to come,’ viz. life and salvation: see 1 Cor. xv. 45. Many suppose these words ὅς ἐστ. TUm. , aft moAAw ins ovy A Syr. τ. u€AA. to be the apodosis of ver.12: but see there. 15—17.|] Though Adam and Christ correspond as opposites, yet there is ὦ remarkable difference, which makes the free gift of grace much more eminent than the transgression and its consequences, and enhances the certainty of its end being accomplished. But not (in all points) as the act of transgression (of Adam, as the cause inducing sin and death on his race), so also is the gift of grace (i. 6. justification: nota direct con- trast, as ὑπακοή in ver. 19: the Apostle has more in mind here the consequence of the παραπτ., and to that opposes the χάρισμα. De W.). 15. εἰ yap «.7.A. ] Distinction the first, in DEGREE :—and in the form of a hypothetical inference ‘a minori ad majus.’ For if by the trans- gression of the one (man) the many (have) died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift abound in (by means of) the grace of the one man Jesus Christ to- wards the many. (1) The first question regards πολλῷ μᾶλλον. Is it the ‘a for- tiori’ of logical inference, or is it to be joined with ἐπερίσσευσεν as quantitative, describing the degree of abounding? Chrys. (πολλῷ γὰρ τοῦτο εὐλογώτερον), Grot., Fritz., Thol., adopt the former, and provided only the same thing is said here as in ver. 17, the usage there would decide it to be so: for there it cannot be quanti- tative. But I believe that not to be so. Here, the question is of abounding, a mat- ter of degree, there, of reigning, a matter of fact. Here (ver. 16) the contrast is between the judgment, coming of one sin- ner, to condemnation, and the free gift, of (see note below) many offences, to justiti- cation. sense the better, and join πολλῴ μᾶλλον with ἐπερίσσευσεν, in the sense of much more abundant (rich in diffusion) was the gift, &c. (2) χάρις, not the grace working in men, here, but the grace which zs in, and flows from, God. (8) ἐν χάριτι TH Tod ...., not to be joined (Thol.) with ἣ δωρεά, as if it were ἡ ἐν χάρ. (which would be allowable), but with ἐπερίσσ. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (His self-offering love, see 2 Cor. vili. 9) is the medium by which the free gift is imparted to men. (4) The aorist ἐπερίσσ. should here be kept to its indefinite his- So that I think the quantitative | a 15—17. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 363 e \ » , A a , lal ~ β ™ οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, "πολλῷ " μᾶλλον ἡ χάρις τοὺ θεοῦ m =ver. 19 bis. ἐ ch. xii. ὃ Ν id 0 ὃ XS 2 ’ὔ’ A nw C.% > θ / 4 | a Kat ἢ WMpEea εν χάρίτι TH του ενος ἂν ρώπου ησου fal Ρ >’ m \ \ q b] / χρίστου ELS τους πολλοὺς εἐπερισσεῦύυσεν. 1 Cor. x17; 33. n vv. 9, 10 reff. 16 \ , i Kab ουχ o Acts ii. 38 reff. Wisd. - ὃ ? CoEN e ΄ Ὁ ὃ μ . ᾿ x xvi. 25. ως ὑ ενος αἀμαρτησαντος TO ὠρήημα' TO μεν yep pch. viii. 18. 8 Ἂ t 2 xe ΣΟΥ͂ 5 \ δὲ 1 4 κριμα ἐξ ἑνὸς “ets ᾿ κατάκριμα, τὸ de ' χάρισμα λλῶν ἢ reap Nels. ΓΕΘ πολλῶν “παραπτωμάτων “ εἰς LKALM La. tive. u=ch.i. 5. xvi. 26. iii. 9. vii. 3.) r James i. 17 only t. 1 Pet. i. 22. om ev F-gr. te 2 Cor. i. 5. ΕΚ q ch. iii. 7 al. constr., Eph. 17 Ἰ X i. 8. 2’Cor. εὖ yap ix. 8, but περ. transi- s see 1 Pet.iv.17. Rev. xx. 4. t ch. ii. 29 reff. v here bis. ch. viii. 1 only+. (-vetv, ch. ii. 1. -σις, 2 Cor. w = here only. see note and ch. i, 32 reff. 16. for auaptnoaytos, ἁμαρτήματος D(and lat!) F [vulg-clem demid] fuld!(not am harl! al) Syr [eth Orig-int,(txt Orig,) Aug,(txtsepe): auaptntos(sic) δὲ}. at end add (wns D!(and lat!) fuld? eth. F-gr 45 lect-19, syr has it w-ast. torical sense, and not rendered as a per- fect, however true the fact expressed may be : both are treated of here as events, their time of happening and present reference not being regarded. 16.}| Distinction the second, in KIND. The former ditfer- ence was quantitative: this is modal. And not as (that which took place) by one that sinned, so is the gift. Itisa _question whether any thing, and what, is to be supplied before 5? ἑνὸς Guapr. Rothe, Meyer, aud Tholuck (and so Εἰ. V.), would supply nothing, and render, ‘And not as by one having sinned, so is the gift.2 But (De W.) this has against it, (1) that since the ydp following gives the reason for this sentence, this must contain implicitly all that that next expands in detail; which is not merely the distinction between spring- ing from ove man and out of many offences, but much more: and (2) that thus διά would = ἐκ or vice versa, whereas διά cha- racterizes the bringer in, and ἐκ the occa- sion. Others have supplied τὸ κρῖμα (Ben- gel, Kéllner): τὸ κατάκριμα (Theophyl., Reiche): 6 θάνατος eisjA@ev (Grot., Es- tius, Koppe) :—but inasmuch as it is pur- poseiy left indefinite, to be explained in the next verse, it is better to supply an inde- finite phrase which may be thus explained : e.g. TO γενόμενον, ‘that which took place by one, |or ‘(it was) through one, | Ke. τὸ μὲν yap «.7.A.] For the judg- ment (pronounced by God upon Adam) came of (was by occasion of) one (man having sinned,—supply ἁμαρτήσαντος : παραπτώματος would be hardly allowable, and would not help the sense, inasmuch as many simmers, as well as many sins, are implied in πολλ. παραπτ. below), unto condemnation (its result, in his own case and that of his posterity: supply, as in ver. 18 is expressed, (ἐγένετο) εἰς πάντας ἂν- Opémovs); but the gift of grace was by occasion of many transgressions (where sin abounded, ver. 20, there grace much more abounded: the existence of the law ‘om ‘yap being implied in παραπτ.) unto justifica- tion. The only difficulty here is the sense of δικαίωμα. ‘The ordinary meaning of the word is τὸ ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικήματος, ‘the amendment of an evil deed: so Aris- totle, Eth. Nicom. v. 10, διαφέρει δὲ τὸ ἀδίκημα καὶ τὸ ἄδικον, καὶ τὸ δικαίωμα καὶ τὸ δίκαιον. ἄδικον μὲν γάρ ἐστι τῇ φύσει ἢ τάξει: τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ὅταν πραχθῇ, ἀδίκημά ἐστι; πρὶν δὲ πραχθῆναι οὔπω, ἀλλ᾽ ἄδικον. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ δικαίωμα" καλεῖται δὲ καὶ τὸ κοινὸν μᾶλλον δικαιο- πράγημα, δικαίωμα δὲ τὸ ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικήματος. But this, which Aristot. in- sists on as the proper, but not perhaps usual sense of the word, is not to be pressed in the N. T., and does not, though upheld by Calv., Calov., Wolf, and Rothe, suit the context as contrasted with κατά’ κριμα. Other renderings are, ‘an abso- lutory sentence’ (Meyer, Fritz., al.): “ὦ righteous act, as in ver. 18; Baruch ii. 19; ‘ righteousness,” as in Rev. xix. 8 (where see note): ‘a righteous cause,’ or plea (XX, Jer. xi. 20): ‘justification ἢ (E. V., Luth., De Wette, al.). The first seems to me to be right, as standing most. exactly in contrast with κατάκριμα; the use of the -μα being partly perhaps accounted for by the alliteration of the ending marking more strongly the antithesis. Thus as κατάκριμα is a sentence of condem- nation, sO δικαίωμα will be a sentence of ac- quittal. This in fact amounts to justifi- cation. 17.1 Distinesion the third, also in KIND; that which came in by the one sinner, was the reign of DEATH: that which shall come in by the One, Jesus Christ, will be a reigning in LIFE. For (carrying on the argument from ver. 15, but not so as to make parenthetical (Rothe) ver. 16—for δικαιοσύνης presupposes δι- kalwua) if by the transgression of the one (man ; the reading ἐν (τῷ) ἑνὶ παραπτώματι goes with ἁμαρτήματος for ἁμαρτήσαντος in ver. 16: both have evidently been corrections) death reigned by means of 964 TIPOS POMAIOTS. Vv. A al o. 4 k , e θ ΄ Χ 2B ‘Xr α νεῖ. 14 τοῦ! Τῷ τοῦ EVOS “παραπτώματι 0 θάνατος * ερασίιλεύσεν apcoF y 2 Cor. Vill. ~~ pe e Ἢ y , ag ΚΙΓΡΊ ἢ xs. James Set τοῦ ἑνός, ” πολλῳ μᾶλλον οἱ τὴν 5, περισσείαν τῆς adcdf Eccles. i. 3 al. δι ο ὃ a n ὃ ΄, x Ba ghkl z = Matt. xviii. χάριτος καὶ τῆς ὠρεᾶς τῆς ΠΡ ΡΥΌΡΗΝ αμβανοντες τὰ 3 ol” 8,9. John v. 47 | 29 al. fi Ζ a πες ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν si τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Revivz10 18 ὈὕΆΑρᾳ ὃ οὖν ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς * παραπτώματος “ εἰς πάντας Xxii. 5. u .? ν᾽ / “ \ ὃ 4 ὦ ἃ d ὃ bch. vii. 8, 25, ἀνθρώπους εἰς ἣ κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ OL EVOS ικαιυ- Vill. . SS ; , , oe 16,18 xiv, , @waTos “ὃ εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους “els “ SiKaiwow ζωῆς vi. 10 413. P. 10,» τ 5 \ an f A a es ᾽ θ ͵ c = ver. 12. ὥςπερ yap Ola τῆς * παρακοῆς τοῦ ἐνὸς ἀνθρώπου d = Rev. xv. 4only. Baruch i ii. 19. see note on ver. 16. 6. Heb. ii.2 only +. (-ovetv, Matt. xviii. 17.) 17. for tw του evos, ev ενι AF; ev tw em D-gr: »: Tw 44: txt BCKLN[P 47!-marg rel] vulg{-clem fuld] D-lat Syr [syr copt zeth ar ἸῺ Chr, Thdrt Thl ec [Euthal-ms Damase Orig- int, | Aug, Chr-comm, Iren-int, Auggsepe : al) Orig, ‘ dwpeas B 49 Orig, syrr Chr-2-mss, διὰ, Thdrt Ambrst Pelag. int; ins TH ‘bef (wn Lk 17. 98. a7. 47. 77. 91 Orig, Chr,[(txt,) Damasc]. (int; ] Iren-int). 18. aft evos ins ανθρωπου &}(N3 disapproving) [eth]. for δικαιωβματος, To δικαιωμα DG [m]; καὶ δικαίωμα delictum) m 46 | Syr (copt) ]. F (per unius justitiam). the one (man), much more (logical—a fortiori) shall they who receive the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness (ver. 15: beware of the shallow and weakening notion, that it is “for τῆς δικαιοσύνης δεδωρημένης ᾿) reign in life (eternal) by means of the one (Man) Jesus Christ. περισσεία an- swers to ἐπερίσσευσεν, ver. 15: τῆς χάριτος, to 7 x. τοῦ θευῦ; only here, as at ch. i. 5, the word signifies not only the grace flowing from God, but the same grace implanted and working in man :--- δωρεᾶς, to δωρεά there, but qualified by τῆς δικαιο- σύνης, answering to δικαίωμα in ver. 16. The present λαμβάνοντες, instead of λαβόντες, is not merely used in a substan- tive sense, receptores (as Fritz. and Meyer), but signifies that the reception is not one act merely, but a continued process by which the περισσεία is imparted. (So Rothe, De W., Thol.) ἐν ζωῇ Bac. | “ Antithesis to 6 θάνατος ἐβασ. Weshould expect ἡ (wh βασιλεύσει, but Paul design- edly changes the form of expression that he may bring more prominently forward the idea of free personality. ζωή is not only corporeal (the resurrection), but also spiritual and moral,—as also in θάνατος we must include διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ver. 12. βασιλεύσουσιν is brought in by the anti- thesis: but it is elsewhere used (see reff.) to signify the state of blessedness, partly in an objective theocratic import (of the reign of the saints with Christ), partly in a subjective moral one,—because reigning is the highest development of freedom, and the highest satisfaction of all desires.” De Wette. 18.] Recapitulation and ech. iv. 25 only $. Levit. xxiv. 22 only. f 2 Cor. x. ev evos 47 -txt] am(with demid om τῆς την Baneey 672 ΤῊ: add και 63 vulg om Ts δικαιοσ. ( 70! Orig, [ins, and βασιλευουσιν [ D3(appy, Tischdf) "Ὁ xp. bef τἡσου B Orig,(agst Orig, παραπτωμα (per unius co-statement of the parallel and distinc- tions. Therefore (ἄρα οὖν, see reff., is placed by Paul at the beginning of a sen- tence, contrary to classical usage) as by means of one trespass (not, ‘the trans- gression of one, as Erasm., Luth., Calv., Koppe, Fritz., Thol. [similarly E. V.], which is contrary to usage, and to ver. 17, where that meaning is expressed by τῷ Tov ἑνὸς παραπτώματι. In this sum- ming up, the Apostle puts the antithetical elements as strongly and nakedly as pos- sible in contrast ; and therefore abridges the ‘trespass of one’ and ‘the righteous act of one’ into ‘one trespass’ and ‘one righteous act’) it came upon (ἐγένετο, indefinite, being supplied) all men unto condemnation,—so also by means of one righteous act (the Death of Christ viewed as the acme of His Obedience, see Phil. ii. 8 = ἡ ὑπακοὴ τοῦ ἑνός below; not as in ver. 16,—nor Righteousness, as Thol., which would not contrast with παραπτ., a single act) it came upon all men (in extent of grace,—zm posse, not in esse as the other) unto justification of (con- ferring, leading to) life. 19.] For (in explanation of ver. 18) as by the dis- obedience of (the) one man the many (= πάντες ἄνθρωποι above, but not so ex- pressed here, because in the other limb of the comparison πάντ. ἄνθρ. could not be put, and this is conformed to it: see there) were made (not, ‘were accounted as’ (Grot. al.): nor ‘became by imputation’ (Beza, Bengel) : nor ‘were proved to be’ (Koppe, Reiche, Fritz.) : see reff.) sinners (not ὑπεύθυνοι κολάσει, as Chrys., Theo- phyl.: ‘actual sinners by practice,’ is 18----90. ΤΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. 565 8 ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἢ κατεστάθησαν ioi πολλοί, οὕτως καὶ διὰ gchiii7 rer. τῆς k ς A na Crux δί h f i γ ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ενὸς OlKaLoL ἃ κατασταθήσονται i οἱ h = 2 Pet. i. 5, 3 Macc. iii. 5. Deut. xxviii_ , A \ 13. πολλοί. *9 νόμος δὲ ᾿ἱ παρειςῆλθεν, ἵνα τὰ πλλεονασῃ τὸ i ver. 15 reff ch. i. 5 reff, @ &\ ,ὔ 7 fe " παράπτωμα. οὗ δὲ "ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ° ὑπερεπερίσ- 1Gal. ii. 4 λάθρα νυκτὸς ἐντὸς τῶν τειχῶν, Polyb. ii. 55. 8. al4.) only, exc. 2 Pet. i.& 2 Chron. xxiy. 11, Mark vii. 37.) only +. παρειςῆλθε ch. vi. 1. "2 Cor. iv. 15 ο 2 Cor. vii. 4 only +. (-@s, m Paul (here bis. n ver. 15. 19. aft 2nd evos add avépwrov D'F Iren-gr, Cyr,[-p(om,)] Aug,(om,jiq) Ambr, [om, ].—rov evos av@p. bef υπακοης F. 20. for 1st de, yap L. meant, the disobedience of Adam having been the inlet to all this: compare ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον ver. 12 and the notes, on the kind of sin spoken of in this whole passage, as being both original and actual), so also (after the same manner or analogy likewise) by means of the obedience (unto death, see on last verse) of (the) One (man) shall (future, because, as in ch. iii. 30, justification, as regards the many, is not yet completed. De W.) the many (= πολ- Aoi, compare Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark x. 45, but thus expressed because πολλοί would not have answered in the other limb of the comparison. Jn order to make the comparison more strict, the πάντες who have been made sinners are weakened to the indefinite of πολλοί, the πολλοί who shall be made righteous are enlarged to the indefinite of πολλοί. Thus a common term of quantity is tound for both, the one ex- tending to its largest numerical inter- pretation, the other restricted to its small- est) be made (see above) righteous (not by imputation merely, any more than in the other case: but ‘shall be made really and actually righteous, as completely so as the others were made really and actu- ally sinners... When we say that man has no righteousness of hs. own, we speak of him as out of Christ: but in Christ and united to Him, he is made righteous, not by a fiction, or ¢mputation only of Christ’s righteousness, but by a real and living spiritual union with a righteous Head as a righteons member, righteous by means of, as an effect of, the righteousness of that Head, but not merely righteous by trans- terence of the Righteousness of that Head; just as in his natural state he is united to a sinful head as a sinful member, sinful by means of, as an effect of, the sinfulness of that Head, but not merely by transference of the sinfulness of that Head). See the whole question respecting πάντες and οἱ πολλοί treated in Tholuck’s Comm. in loc. 20.| How the law (of Moses) came in, in the divine economy. But (i.e. the two things spoken of ver. 19 did not simply and immediately happen) the law (of Moses: not daw, in the abstract, nor for οὗ, οπου F, ‘the law of nature, as Dr. Peile,—nor even the law of God in its general sense, as often in ch. i. ii. ;—but here strictly THE LAW OF ΜΟΒΈΒ, as necessitated by vv. 13, 14 in this same argument) came in besides (besides the fact of the many being made sinners, and as a transition point to the other result: formed a third term, besides these two, in the summary of God’s dealings with man: compare πρυφετέθη, Gal. 111. 19: not πρὸς καιρὸν ἐδόθη, Theophyl.: not, came in between Christ and Adam (the fact, but not the interpretation) as Theodoret and Calv.:— not = eisjA@ey merely),—in order that (τελικῶς, its design,—not merely ἐκβατι- k@s, its result, as Chrys., al.; here, and every where else. So of ver. 21) the trespass (created by the law; for where no law, no transgression, ch. iv. 15:—not merely the knowledge of sin, but actual transgression) might be multiplied (in actual fact: not ‘be abundantly ex- hibited,’ or any such evasive sense). No possible objection can be taken to this. statement by those who view the Law as a preparation for Christ. If it was so, then the effect of the Law, the creating and multiplying transgression, was an end in the divine purposes, to bring out the necessity of One who should deliver from sin and bring in righteousness. ‘Those who weaken this telic ἵνα into ‘so that,’ in order to guard the Apostle from what seems to them a doctrine unworthy of God, overlook equally his firm standing on the acknowledged ground of historic fact and actuality, as the humility with which here, as ever (ch. xi. 33, 34), he bows before the mystery of the οἰκονομία τοῦ θεοῦ." Um- breit. But (this terrible end, the multi- plying of transgression, was not, however, God’s ultimate end: He had a further and gracious one) where (‘when,’ De Wette, after Grot., al.: but Tholuck justly remarks that instances of this meauing of of in prose are wanting. In verse it seems to occur, Eur. Iph. Aul. 96, but even there may be rendered ‘in the case where’) sin, (the generic of the specific παράπτωμα) was multiplied, (God’s) grace did beyond 906 p ver. 14 reff. q ver. 16 reff. r ch. iii. 5 reff. [4 “Ὁ (exc. John ων. viii. 7.) of La (Exod. xii. 39 B. t ch. v. 20 reff. uch. iii. 4 reff. v Acts x. 41 reff, w = and constr., Gal. ἈΝ Νὲ ii. 19. (ver. 10. ch. xiv. 8.) w. απὸ, Col. ii. 20. y = Col. (ii. 20.) iii. 7 only. 21. om τω F. ina. B. CuHap. VI. 1. rec emmevovuer, with rel Chr, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. z= ch. ii. 4. iii. 29. for βασιλευση, -σει KL cl! ο [47] 77. 115-6-21-2. ὙΠ. Ls U 91 “ [4 Pp > Χ 4 Si.» “ 3 σευσεν ἡ χάρις, 31] ἵνα ὥςπερ Ῥ ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν 5 θανάτῳ, οὕτως καὶ ἡ χάρις Ρ βασιλεύση διὰ δικαι τῷ θανάτῳ, οὕτως ἡ χάρις Ῥ βασιλεύσῃ ο- σύνης ἃ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου V I 1 r Τ , 9 τ 3 A ἘΝ 5) , roe / “ ες ; L οὖν * ἐροῦμεν ; ὃ ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ. ἵνα ἡ χάρις ᾿ πλεονάσῃ ; 3 ἃ μὴ γένοιτο. A ς , x a y+ y / y ᾽ > A 3 Z x a 3 wn τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, * πῶς ἔτι Y ζήσομεν ἡ ἐν αὐτῇ ; 27% 5 ἀγνοεῖτε Υ οἵτινες ἡ ἀπεθάνομεν x=ch.ili.6. 1Cor.xv.12. Ο581.1τ.9. Gen. xxxix. 9. ach. i. 13 reff. xp. bef Thdrt Gennad-c Diod-ec Thl Ee Tert [perseverabimus (perferemus Tert-ms)!, permanebimus vulg G-lat [F-lat Orig-int,| Augsepe: emmevouey KX[P ἃ n 47] 1. 57. 68. 109 lect-13 copt [Euthal-ms]: emmer- νωμεν L [k] 93. 124: txt ABCD ΕἾ -οΥ] Ὁ m ο 17 Syr Damasc. ins ev bef ty A[ Woide, e contra Cowper, expr], in peccato latt. 2. aft οιτινες ins yap F latt syrr (not Tert). measure abound (not ‘did much more abound,’ as Εἰ. V.: for words compounded with ὑπέρ have a superlative, not a com- parative signification, e.g. ref. ὑπερλίαν, ὑπερνικάω, ὑπερυψόω, x.T.A..—and Paul often uses these compounds. The E. V. has likewise destroyed the force of the comparison by rendering the different words πλεονάζω and περισσεύω both by one word ‘ abound’). 21.| The pur- pose of this abounding of grace :—its ultimate prevalence and reign, by means of righteousness, unto life eternal. That, as sin reigned (the historic indefinite past, because the standing-point of the sentence is, the restitution of all things hereafter) in death (ἐν, of that in and by which the reign was exercised and shewn: death was the central act of sin’s reign. He does not here say, ‘ death reigned by sin, as in vv. 12—14, because sin and grace are the two points of comparison, and require to be the subjects), so also grace may reign by means of (not ἐν here, though it might be so, if δικαιοσ. applied to our being made righteous: but as it applies to the Righte- ousness of Christ making us righteous, it is διά) righteousness, unto (leading to) life eternal through (by means of) Jesus Christ our Lord (‘Jam ne memoratur quidem Adamus, solius Christi mentio vi- get.’ Bengel). Cuap. VI.—VIII.] THe MoRAL FF- FECTS OF JUSTIFICATION. VI. 1—14.] No encouragement given hereby (see ch. v. 20) to a life in sin: for the baptized are dead to sin, and walk in a new (vv. 1—7) life, and one (vv. 8—11) dedicated to God. 1.) What then shall we say ἢ —the introduction of a difficulty or ob- jection arising out of the preceding argu- ment, and referring to ch. y. 20. See ch. (nowuerCFL 17 Diod Chr-ms,. iii. 5. ἐπιμένωμεν, ‘must we think that we may persist,—the deliberative subjunctive. So εἴπωμεν ἢ σιγῶμεν, Eur. Ion 758: παρέλθω δόμους, Med. 1275. See Kihner, Gramm. § 464, and note on ch. v. 1. [Are we to continue (‘Must we think that we may persist,’ in other words | “ May we persist”’) in (our natural state and commission of) sin, that (God’s) grace may be multiplied (ch. v. 20)? 2.) μὴ yév. (see reff.), used of some inference in itself abhorrent from reverence or piety, or precluded by some acknow- ledged fact inconsistent therewith. The latter is here the ground of rejection. An acknowledged fact in the Christian life follows, which precludes our persisting in our sin. We who (οἵτινες describing quality, not merely matter of fact) died (historic aorist, not perf. as in E. V. [the true reference is thus most unfortunately lost]: the time referred to being that of our baptism) to sin (reff. and examples in Wetst.:—became as separate from and apathetic towards sin as the dead corpse is separate from and apathetic towards the functions and stir of life: μένειν ἀκίνητον ὥσπερ τὸν νεκρόν, Chrys. ‘ Sin,’ τῇ au. = as above), how shall we live any longer therein (= περιπατεῖν év—but not, as De W., (ἣν with a dative: ζῆν ἔν τινι is a fur- ther step than (ἣν τινι, implying introition, and not merely sympathy)? 3.] Or (supposing you do not assent to the argu- ment in the last verse, see reff.) are ye ignorant (the foregoing axiom is brought out into recognition by the further state- ment ofa truth universally acknowledged) that all we who were (i.e. all of us, hav- ing been [not as E. V., again most unfor- tunately, “so many of us as were ;” giving it to be understood that some of them had ABCDF KL[P |X abcdf ghkl mnol?7 [47] VI. 1—5. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 567 e e b 4s 4 6 b.? \ ? A his ΗΝ mee ὅτι ὅσοι ἢ ἐβαπτίσθημεν ὃ εἰς χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, ὃ εἰς τὸν ὃ Acts viii. 16 reff. , > 5 θάνατον αὐτοῦ » ἐβαπτίσθημεν ; * ° συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ \ a / 5 \ ΄, διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον, ἵνα ὥςπερ 4 ἠγέρθη d fi χριστὸς ἐκ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν c Col. ii. 12 only +. d 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff. e see John xi. “ \ rat / a ΄ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς “ δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως, ὅδ᾽ vii. 6 only. καινότητι ζωῆς 8 περιπατήσωμεν. Ezek. xlvii. 12 only. g = Acts xxi. 5 ef yap " σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ | ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, 2. κ. ἐν, 2 reff. h here only $. Amosix.13. Zech. xi. 2 only. Cor. iv. i ch. i. 23 reff, 3. om τησοὺυν B [(a)] 31-9. 73. 109-18-20-24 lect-8 [Euthal-ms} Chr Th] [Orig-int, (ins,)]: eno. bef xpior. [0] 80 Syr eth. 4. om τον D'F k!, not beenthus baptized |)baptized into Christ Jesus (‘into participation of, ‘into union with,’ Christ, in His capacity of spiritual Mastership, Headship, and Pattern of con- formity) were baptized into (introduced by our baptism into a state of conformity with and participation of) His death? The Apostle refers (1) to an acknowledged fact, in the signification, and perhaps also in the manner (see below) of bap- tism—that it put upon us (Gal. iii, 27) a state of conformity with and participa- tion in Christ ;—and (2) that this state involves a death τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ even as He died τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (ver. 10);—the meaning being kept in the background, but all the while not lost sight of, that the dene- fits of His Death were likewise made ours by our introduction into the covenant. 4.| A further explanation of the assertion in the last verse proceeding (οὖν) on its concession by the reader. We were then (not the temporal but inferential ‘then τ: q.d. “ You grant my last position: Wellthen,” .. .) buried with Him (καθάπερ ἔν τινι τάφῳ τῷ ὕδατι καταδυόντων ἡμῶν τὰς κεφαλὰς ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος θάπτεται, καὶ καταδὺς κάτω κρύπτεται ὅλως καθάπαξ, Chrys. on John iii. Hom. xxv. 2, vol. viii. p. 151) by means of our baptism into (His) death (τοῦ βαπτ. cis τὸν θάνατον belong together, not συνετάφ. εἰς τ. θ., which would hardly bear any sense. The absence of the art. before eis is no objec- » tion to this ;—it is unnecessary, because no distinction from any other baptism is brought out, and τὸ βάπτ.-εἰς-τὸν-θάν. is connected as one idea); in order that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory (δόξα and δύναμις are cognate ideas; compare the import of the Heb. ty and the LXX in Ps. Ixviii. 35 (Ixvii. 34 LXX), Isa. xii. 2: and τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης in Col. i. 11. The divine δόξα includes all that manifests the Creator to the creature: and hence also his Almightiness. Tholuck. The renderings ‘in Dei gloriam’ (Beza, Bretschneider), and ‘because He is the for δια, υπο D1(appy). image of the Father’ (Dr. Burton, altern.), are inadmissible for διά with a gen.) of the Father (Theodoret makes ἡ δόξα τοῦ πα- τρός = 7 οἰκεία θεότης of the Son, which is manifestly wrong), thus we also should walk in newness of life (not = ‘a new life ;;>—mnor are such expressions ever to be diluted away thus: the abstract καινότητι is used to bring the quality of newness, which is the point insisted on, more into prominence, compare 2 Thess. ii. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 17 [and notes]; Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 34. 3. The comparison is not only (as Stuart) between our Lord’s phy- sical death and resurrection, and our spiritual; but reaches far deeper: see notes on vv. 10, 11). 5.] The Apostle confirms the last verse by a necessary sequence that those who are united to Him in His Death, shall be also in His resurrection. For (confirmatory) if we have become united with the like- ness of His Death (σύμφυτος = either (1) ‘congenital,’ —as διὰ τὴν σύμφυτον δικαιο- σύνην, spoken of Samuel, Jos. Antt. vi. 3. 3,—or (2) ‘ cognate,’ of like nature,— or (8) ‘arising simultaneously,’—or (4) ‘grown together,’—or (5) ‘ planted with,’ ‘consitus.’ The rendering of Syr., Vulg., Luth., Εἰ. V., ‘planted together,’ is inad- missible, -φυτος being not from φυτεύω, but from φύω : as also is that of Erasm. and Calv.,—‘ insititii.’ The fourth mean- ing, ‘grown together,’ ‘intimately and pro- gressively united,’—‘ coaluimus,’ as Grot., —seems here to apply best. Obs. σύμφ. is to be connected with τῷ 6u., not with τῷ χριστῷ understood, as in ver. 6: in which case we should have to supply τῷ ὁμοιώματι again before τῆς ἀναστάσεως, which would be not only grammatically difficult, but would not correspond to the sense: for Christians, it is true, partake of the Ζέζε- ness only of Christ’s death, but of His actual Resurrection itself, as the change of construction shews: see below), so shall we be also (ἀλλά after a hypothetical clause serves to strengthen the inference: see 508 ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ: VIL Ὁ = ͵΄ , , k=1Cor.iv. ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς 'avactacews ἐσόμεθα, ὃ τοῦτο γινώσκον- 15 reff. Hom. Ψ © mn \ e Ἐξ m » n , iLa.si,t. TES, OTL ὁ ™madralos ἡμῶν '' ἄνθρωπος " συνεσταυρώθη, © a“ “ a Le / a / iva °xatapynOn τὸ ἢ σῶμα τῆς Ρ ἁμαρτίας, 4 τοῦ μηκέτι lal fal 4 \ > Ν τ δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ: 70 γὰρ ἀποθανὼν " δεδι- ὃς Π n Matt. xxvii. 44} Mk. J. Gal. ii. 20 only +. 13. Col. ii. 11. q 1 Cor. x. 13 reff. s Acts xiii. 39 only. see 1 Cor. v. n., = ch. vii, 23, 24. viii. ο ch, iii, 3 reff. p ge 6al. Deut, xiii. 4 A Ald. ΕΞ τ Matt. vi. 24. ch. vii. Sir..xxvi. 29. 5. for adda, aua F latt. aft avaor. ins αὐτου F Syr [copt eth] arm. 6. ins xa bef τουτο B: rovto δε 179. reff., and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 40) with His Resurrection (a change of con- struction : because it could not well have been said σύμφυτοι τοῦ ὁμοιώματος τ. θ. above, the gen. after adjectives compounded with σύν denoting the thing actually par- taken (cf. Kiihner, ὃ 519, and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 171: who cites examples in σύντροφος, Soph. Philoct. 209,---σύννομος, Eur. Hel. 1508,---σύμφωνος, Aristoph. Av. θῦ8,---συμφυής, Plato Legg. iv. p. 721,— συνήθης, ib. v. p. 799,---σύμψηφος, Cratyl. p. 398), and hardly the mere figure or like- ness of it,—and similarly it could not well here be said σύμφ. τῇ ἀναστάσει, because the dat. would not be strong enough to denote the state of which we shall be actual partakers. The future is used perhaps because of the inference, as a logical se- quence,—‘ If, &e.,. . . . A shall =B?’— but more probably with a deeper meaning, because the participation in His Resurrec- tion, however partially and in the inner spiritual life, attained here, will only then be accomplished in our entire being, when we ‘shall wake up after his likeness’). 6.| Knowing (recollecting) this, that our old man (former self, personality before our new birth—opposed to καινός or νέος ἄνθρ., καινὴ KTiots,—see Col. iii. 10; 2 Cor. v.17; Eph. iv. 22—24,—not merely the guilt of sin, nor the power of sin, but the man. The idea is not Jewish, as Tholuck has shewn: the passage quoted from the Sohar-chadasch not bearing the meaning commonly given to it,—and if it did, that book itself being a production probably of the sixteenth century) was (at our baptism) crucified with Him (the great key to our text is ref. Gal. As the death of the Lord Jesus was by crucifixion, the Apostle uses the same expression of our death to our former sinful self, which is not only by virtue of, but also in the likeness of, Christ’s death,—as signal, as entire, as much a death of cutting off and putting to shame and pain), in order that (the aim and end of the συσταυρωθῆναι) the body of sin might be annulled (“ τὸ c@p. τῆς ἅμαρτ. belongs together, and τῆς auapr. is not to be joined with καταργ. as being = ἀπὸ τῆς auapt.(Theodoret, Wahl) ;—nor is τὺ σῶμ. τ. au., ‘the totality of sin’ (Orig. Kkatapynon A wth. 2, Theophyl. 1, Grot.); nor ‘ the substance or essence of sin,’ after the Heb. (Rab- binical) usage of oy and Ἢ" (Schéttg.): nor, ‘the mass of sin’ (Thol. 1);—nor a mere figure to carry out the idea of being crucified with Christ (Calov., Wolf, Reiche, Olsh., Stuart 2, al.);—nor=% σὰρξ τ. Guapt.; but “ the body, which belongs to or serves sin, in which sin rules or is ma- nifested, = τὰ μέλη, ver. 13, in which is 6 νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ch. vii. 29,---τὸ σῶμα τ. θανάτου, ch. vii. 24,—ai πράξεις τοῦ σώματος, ch. vili. 19,--τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, Col. ii. 11. De Wette: with whom agree Orig. 1, Theophyl. 2, Beza, Bengel, Meyer, Tholuck, Stuart 1, al. But as De W. further remarks, we must not understand that the body is the seat of sin, or at all events must not so understand those words as if the principle of sin lay in the body, which is not true, for it lies in the will). καταργηθῇ, might be rendered powerless (annulled as far as regards ac- tivity and energy. The word occurs twenty- five times in Paul’s Epistles (elsewhere, Luke xiii. 7, Heb. ii. 14 only), and does not appear to signify absolute annihilation, but as above. Gregory of Nyssa has gone into the meaning in his discourse on 1 Cor. xv. 28, vol. i. p. 1325), that we might no longer be in bondage (be slaves to) sin (i.e. that the body should no longer be under the dominion of sin, see below, ver. 12). 7.} The difficulty of this verse arises from the Apostle having in a short and pregnant sentence expressed a whole similitude, joining, as he elsewhere does in ABCDF ΚΙΓΡῚΝ ανοαῖ ghkl mnol7 [17] such cases, the subject of the first limb οὐ the comparison with the predicate of the second. Fully expressed, it would stand thus: ‘ For, as a man that is dead is ac- quitted and released from guilt and bond- age (among men: no reference to God’s judgment of him): so a man that has died to sin is acquitted from the guilt of sin and released trom its bondage.’ I express dedix. by this periphrasis in both cases, because I believe that all this is implied in it: ‘is acquitted,’ ‘has his quittance,’ from sin, so that Sin (personified) has no more claims on him, either as a creditor or as a master: cannot detain him for debt, nor sue him for service. A larger refers 6—12. ΟΣ POMAIOT®S. 5369 4 5 > ‘\ “ 4 7] 8 , δὲ t >, θ , \ καίωται Sato τῆς apapTias. εἰ 0€ ᾿ἰἀπεθάνομεν συν t =2Cor.v. 15. - , “ \ ΄ > A Oe 3 , a rite age χρίστῳ, " πιστεύομεν “ OTL Kat * συνζήσομεν AUTO, elderes erate ὅτι χριστὸς Wéyepbels ἐκ “vexpav οὐκ ἔτι ἀποθνήσκει: ὃ τοῦτο en. Ox wee i ] v2 Cor. vil.3. , > a 5) ” x ΄ 10 γἃ 6 2 Tim. ii. 11 θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ετι * κυριεύει. ὃ yap ἀπεθανέν, fire.” -“ > ΄ \ “ ~ lal “ yer. 4. τῇ “ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ὃ ἐφάπαξ' YO δὲ ζῇ, " ζῇ τῷ θεῷ. x here bis. \ a / ς \ \ ‘ A uke xxii. 11 οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς “ λογίζεσθε 4 ἑαυτοὺς “νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ %. cb. vil « , Ὁ “σ᾿ δὲ A 6 a 3 a Ἴ a 12 . 1.24. 1 Tim ἁμαρτίᾳ, ὃ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν χριστῷ ΪΙησοῦ. fet) vic 15 only. -P. Gen. iii. 16. y acc. of object, Gal. ii. 20. Rev. xviii. 7. z dat., Col. iin, 23 al. a — Heb. vii. 27. ix. 12. x. 10 (1 Cor. xv. 6) only +. Ὁ = Gal. ii. 19. 1 Pet. ii. 24. ο = and constr., ch. xiv. 14. Phil. iii. 13. Wisd. xv. 15. here only. see ch. vii. 8. d 2nd pers., 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff. e constr., 8. for δε, yap F[-gr] tol: ovy Syr. (G-lat has autem aut enim.) rec (for συν.) ov¢., with BCKL[P] rel: txt AB! DEX n 17.—-wuey CK[P] Καὶ [Bas, Damase] ΤῊ] : συνζησομεθα F. for avtw, τω χριστω D'F latt(not demid fuld tol [spee]) Syr Aug,| (txt,). 17 def. ] 11. ree aft νεκροὺς μεν ins εἰναι, with KL[P|N% rel [vulg spec syr Orig-c(and int.) Chr-ed, Euthal-ms] Did, Thdrt Hil, [Ambrst]: bef vexp. μεν, BCR! Damasc: om ADF 17 [Syr arm] copt eth Chr-ms, Tert,. rec at end adds τω κυρίῳ ἡμων, with CKL[P]X rel [vulg-clem arm] Syr(but pref to xp. io.) copt Chr, Thi [Did, Orig- int,} Ambrst: om ABD F{(but a space is left) spec am fuld] demid flor harl tol eth syr Bas, Cyr[-p,] Thdrt Thl-comm Ce-comm Tert, Hil, Aug(sepe) Pelag Sedul Bede. ence is thus given to δεδικ. than the pur- poses of the present argument, which is treating of the power, not the guilt of sin, required: but that it is so, lies in the nature of ἁμαρτία, the service of which is guilt, and the deliverance from whose ser- vice necessarily brings with it acquittal. 8—11.] This new life must be one dedicated to God. 8. | Now (continuing the train of argument) if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also (the future as in ver. 5,— ’ because the life with Him though here begun, is not here completed: and the πιστεύομεν used more of dogmatic belief, than of trust, though the latter meaning is not altogether absent) live with Him. 9.1 This and the following verse explain what sort of a life with Christ is meant, by what we know of the Resurrection-life of Christ himself. The only difficulty here is in οὐκ ἔτι κυριεύει, as implying that Death had dominion over Christ, which we know it Aad not: see John x. 17, 18; ii. 19; Acts i1..24 But this vanishes, when we remember that our Lord, by submitting to Death, virtually, and in the act of death, surrendered Him- self into the power of Death. Death could not hold Him, and had no power over Hin further than by his own suffer- ance: but power over Him it had, inas- much as He died. 10.1 For (the proof of the foregoing) the death which He died (not ‘in that He died,’ as E. V., nor is 6 for καθ᾽ 6, either here or in ref. Gal, but the accus. objective, governed by the verb. So also of ὃ δὲ (7 below), unto sin He died (De Wette well remarks that Vou. II. we must in expressing this verse abide by the indefinite reference to sin in which the death of Christ is placed; if we attempt to make it more definite, ‘ for sin,’ or ‘to that state, in which He suffered the punish- ment of sin,’ we shall lose the point of comparison, which lies in ‘ to sin,’ and ‘to God.’ If we are to expand the words ‘died to sin,’ we must say that our Lord at death passed into a state in which He had ‘no more to do with sin’—either as tempting Him (though in vain), or as re- quiring to be atoned for (this having been now effected), or as met by Him in daily contradiction which He endured from sin- ners) once for all (so that it is not to be repeated: see reff.); but the life which He liveth (see above) He liveth unto God (indefinite again, but easily filled up and explained : to God,—as being glorified by and with the Father, as entirely rid of con- flict with sin and death, and having only God’s (properly so called) work to do,—as waiting till, in the purposes of the Father, all things are put under Him :—and ἕο (for) God, as being the manifestation and brightness of the Father’s glory). 11.) An exhortation to realize this state uf death unto sin and life unto God with Christ. Thus (after the same manner as Christ) do ye also (imperative: Meyer only holds it to be indic.) account yourselves . (better than ‘infer yourselves to be,’ as Chrys. and Beza,—see reff. and on ch. iii. 28) dead (indeed) unto sin (as ver. 2 aud following), but alive unto God in Christ Jesus (i.e. ‘by virtue of your union with Him? not through (διά) Christ Jesus; in this chapter it is not Christ’s Mediator- BB 370 ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. VE; f=chvt οὖν f βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ ὃ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι, ech. viii. ll. h g? 2 ς 7 - 1.3 θ > a ” 1 Cor. xv. 53, εἰς τὸ =~UTAKOVELY ταις ETTLOVELLALS αυτου. 54. 2 Οοτ. k , | , C2. LA m “ > ΄ a. ΥἿΝ , iv 11. το ὦ παρίστανετε TA! μέλη ὑμῶν ™ ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, only. 90 ᾽ \ ἢ 7 ε \ a A . \ > ~ . 23. n πε pc ref. ἀλλὰ οὐρα νὰ νόμον ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ὡςεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ich. i. 24 4 a \ , e a ov / A a ko here ke ζῶντας, Kal τὰ | μέλη ὑμῶν πὶ ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ θεῷ. (5 times). ΄ ' \ ΄ a > ΄ > ΄ > ε \ ii. 22, 14 x < oO apd apapTia yap be ass ov “κυριεύσει: ov yap ἐστε © UTO > ’ > \ e / Iraul{here νόμον, ἀλλὰ ° ὑπὸ χάριν. bis. bis. 1 Cor. vi. 15 [366] 9122.) only, exc. Matt. v. 29, 30. James iii. 5,6, iv. 1, Exod. xxix. 17 al. m here bis. John xviii. 3. ch. xiii. 12. 2 Cor. vi. 7. x. 4 ‘only. Jer. xxi. 4, n ver. 11. ΟἹ Cor. ix. 20 τοῦ, 12. exaxovew F [ Meth-ms, 1. rec αὐτὴ ev Tats επιθ. αὐτου (appy a combination of the two readings), with C3KL[P] rel syr [Bas, Euthal-ms}] Chr, Thdrt Thi Gc: ἀυτη, omg the rest, DF spec Iren-int, [Orig-int,] Tert, Vict- tun, : txt ABC & [47] vulg (not F- lat) D?-lat Syr coptt «th arm Orig,[ints |} Epiph, Antch, Damase Jer Aug;sepe} Sedul Bede. 13. rec (for wser) ws, with DFKL[P] 17 rel [Bas,] Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] Gc: “txt ABC [47] Epiph, Damasc. ζωντες DIF, om ta (bef 2nd μελη) B. 14. for 1st ov, οὐκετι N}(nurked for erasure by &% but the marks erased) [Καὶ Orig-e, Thdrt}. (aAAa, so BCD! FR?) 13 μηδὲ ; ship, but His Headship, which is pro- minent.—év yp. Ἴησ., is not (Reiche, Meyer, Fritz.) to be joined with both vexp. TH ἅμ. and ζῶν. τ. θ., but only with the latter, next to which !t stands, and of which it is literally and positively, whereds of the other it is only figuratively (τῷ ὁμοιώμ., ver. 5) and negatively true). 12, 13.] Hor tatory inferences from ver. 11: from μή to τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, negative, answering to νεκροὺς τῇ au.—then posi- five, answering to ζῶντας τῷ θεῷ. 12.| βασιλευέτω answers to the imagery throughout, in which Sin is a master or lord. [Ὁ is hardly right to lay a stress on it, and say (as Chrys.) οὐκ εἶπε μὴ οὖν (ζήτω ἡ ἧ σὰρξ μηδὲ ἐνεργείτω, ἀλλ᾽, ἢ ἅμαρ- τία μὴ βασιλευέτω. οὐ γὰρ τὴν φύσιν ἦλθεν ἀνελεῖν, ἀλλὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν διορ- θῶσαι: it is no matter of comparison be- tween reigning and indwelling merely, but between reigning and being deposed. But why τῷ θνητῷ iu. σώματιῦ᾽ ΟΊ; al., explain it ‘dead to sin,’ which it clearly cannot be. Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., and Reiche suppose the word inserted to re- mind us of the other life, and the shortness of the conflict, or (Theophyl.) of the short- ness of sinful pleasures; Kéllner,—to point out that it is dishonourable to us to serve Sin, whose reign is confined to the mortaé body ; Fritzsche, “ quoniam, qui peccato ministrum se praebet, adhuc in mortali cor- pore lwerere nec nisi fragilis vitee meminisse videtur ;’ De Wette, Tholuck, al., that the Apostle, wishes to keep in view the con- nexion between sin and death on the one hand, and that συν(ὴν which is freed from death on the other. This last view seems the most probable. See 2 Cor. iv. 11 and note. There is considerable uncertainty in the reading of the latter part of this verse. ‘That which I have adopted is sup- ported by the primary Mss. and has the approval of Lachinann, Tischendorf, Meyer, and De Wette. 13. | Nor render (see reff. ;—us a soldier renders his service to his sovereign, or a servant to his master) your members (more particular than ‘ your bodies ;’ the individual members being in- struments of different lusts and sins) as instruments (or, ‘weapons, as Vualg., most of the Greek expositors, and Luth., Calv., Beza, Tholuck, which latter defends this rendering by Paul’s fondness for military similitudes, and by the occurrence of ὀψώνια below, ver. 23;—but as De W. observes, the compurison here is to servi- tude rather than soldiership) of unright- eousness to sin; but render (the present imperat. above denotes habit,—the ex- hortation guards against the recurrence of a devotion of the members to sin: this aorist imperat., on the other hand, as in ch. xii. 1, denotes an act of self-devotion to God once for all, not a mere recurrence of the habit) yourselves (not merely your members, but your whole selves, body, soul, und spirit) to God, as alive from having been dead (as in vv. 4 ff. and Eph. ii. 1—5), and your members as instru- ments (see above) δὲ righteousness to God (dat. ‘commodi,’ as indeed is τῇ auapr. above, the dat. after wapior. being there left to be supplied, because of τῇ au. tol- lowing). 14. An assurance, con- firming (by the ydp) the possibility of the surrender to God commanded in the last verse, that sin shall not be able to assert and maintain its rule in those who are not under the law but under grace. The future κυριεύσει cannot be taken as a 15—16. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 911 15 p , > e ΄ “ 5) > \ ort) ° γι: Τί οὖν; ἁμαρτήησωμεν, ὃτι οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὕπο νόμον » εν. ii. 9. Xi. ἐ. ἈΝ \ ἀλλὰ ο ὑπὸ χάριν ; 4“ μὴ γένοιτο. lees AD “ ᾿ τ Οὐκ OLOATE OTL W qch. ili.4 reff. rch. v. 16 reff. e \ , > , a K παριστάνετε ὃ ἑαυτοὺς δούλους ' εἰς " ὑπακοήν, δοῦλοί ἐστε Fok Us τοῖο" t e ς ΄ A ig f r > Q ΄ δ κα .Ὁ a @ UTTAKOUVETE, TOL αμαρτιαᾶς Els AVQaTOV ἢ UTTAKONS t constr., Matt. ΧΙ LT. Sz 24. 15. rec awaprnoouev, with rel Chr, Thdrt, {Damasc] ΤῊ] (c: ἡμαρτησαμεν F, peccavimus am [fuld] harl D%-lat G-lat: txt ABCDKL/ PIX ὁ mn 17 [47 Euthal-ms] Clem,. Syr sah arm-zoh(1805) [Orig-int, | Aug. command or exhortation, which use of the future would if not always, yet cer- tainly here, require the second person,— and would hardly suit a personification like ἁμαρτία. The second part of the verse refers back to ch. v. 20, 21, where the law is ctated to be the multiplier of transgres- sion,—and accords with 1 Cor. xv. 56, ἢ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 6 νόμος. The stress is on κυριεύσει : 4. d. ‘ Your efforts to live a life of freedom from the tyranny of sin shall not be frustrated by its after all tyrannizing over you and asserting its dominion: for ye are not under that law which is the strength of sin, but under that grace (here in the widest sense, justifying and sanctifying,—grace in all its attributes and workings) in which is no condem- nation,’ ch. vili. 1. [0 will be seen from the above, that Liuterpret κυριεύσει rather of the eventual triumph of sin by obtaining domination over us, than of its reducing us under its subjection as servants in this life. This is necessary, both to fit this verse into the context, and to suit the question which arises in the next. See Calvin’s masterly note. So also Tholuck and De Wette. The discussions (in Stuart and al.) as to whether νόμ. is the moral or ceremonial law, and as to whether we are bound by the former, are irrelevant here: the assertion being merely that of the general matter of fact, about which there can be no question, that we (Christians) are not under the law, placed in a covenant of legal obedience, but under grace,—placed in a covenant of justi- fication by faith and under the promise of the indwelling Spirit—subjects of a higher law—even the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, ch. viii. 2. Whether we are bound by the law, and how far, depends on how far the law itself spoke the immutable moral truth of God’s government of the world, or was adapted to temporary observ- ances and symbolic rites now abolished,— the whole of which subject is not under consideration here. i make these remarks to justify myself for not entering into those long and irrelevant discussions with which many of our commentaries are interrupted, and the sense of the Apostle’s argument (adda, so BCFR! [ Damasc ].) 16. ins 7 bef ave D'F demid flor harl! sah Sedul. om es θανατὸον DE [am] confounded. 15—23.] The being under grace (free from the condemnation of sin) and not under the law, is no en- couragement to sin: for (vv. 16—19) we have renounced the service of sin, and have become the servants of righteous- ness: and (vv. 20—23) the consequences of the service of sin are terrible and fatal, whereas those of the service of righteous- ness are blessed and glorious. 15. | τί οὖν (sc. ἐστίν) ; = τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; «ε 4 ver. 1. ἁμαρτήσωμεν) Must we imagine that we may sin? may we sin t— the aor. because he is speaking of com- mitting acts of sin [not of a habit of living in sin, although that would be induced by such acts]: on the deliberative sub- junctive, see ver. 1. This question is not, any more than that of ver. 1, put into the mouth of an objector, but is part of the Apostle’s own discourse, arising out of what has preceded, and answered by him in the following verses. 16. ] ‘You are the servants either of God or of sin,—there is no third course.’ The former part of the verse as far as ὑπακούετε re- minds them merely of an universal truth, — that the yielding ourselves servants for obedience to any one, implies the serving, being (in reality) the servants of such per- son. ‘Then this is applied in the form of a dilemma, implying that there is no third service, 4. 4. * Now this must be true of you with regard either to sin or to God. Know ye uot, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants with a view to obe- dience, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, (and in this case) either (ἤτοι---ἤ only occurs here in N. Τ. ἤτοι in alter- natives is exclusive, cf. Herod. i. 11, δίδωμε αἵρεσιν, ὁκοτέρην βούλεαι τραπέσθαι .. . ἤτοι κεῖνόν γε τὸν ταῦτα βουλεύσαντα δεῖ ἀπόλλυσθαι, ἢ σὲ τὸν ἐμὲ. . « - ἴξοογ. ἀντιδ. p. 817, ἦλθεν ἂν ἤτοι κατηγορήσων ἢ καταμαρτυρήσων, and see Hartung, Par- tikellehre, ii. 355 f.) (servants) of sin, unto death (‘ with death as the result,’— not physical death merely, nor eternal death merely, but DEATH (by sin) in its most general sense, as the contrast to (life by) RIGHTEOUSNESS, —the state of misery Se - 372 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. VI. , , ry , ‘\ 7 ”~ cal wach. vias. Tels δικαιοσύνην ; 17 χάρις δὲ τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι ἧτε δοῦλοι 1 Cor. συ. δ. 2 Cor. ii. 14. viii. 16. ix. 5 v Mark xii. 30, Iv. 29. W constr., ch. 1. 24. see note. Acts xxiii. 25. 3 Macc. iii. 30. y Acts ii. 42 reff. 1.21 Ald. 2 Macc. i. 27. ii. 22 only. .Ἱ Cor. ii. 3 reff. d ver. 13. ch. i. 24 reff. g ch. iv. 7 reff. τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὑπηκούσατε Y παρεδόθητε * τύπον Y διδαχῆς, 18 5 ἐλευθερωθέντες δὲ i. ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὅ ἐδουλώθητε τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ. θρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν “ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. ov \ d ΄ 4 d ͵ "a a e - a ὥςπερ yap ἃ παρεστήσατε Ta “*peAn ὑμῶν “δοῦλα τῇ f2 / \ a 8 ? / h > \ 8 > / “ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἕ ἀνομίᾳ “eis τὴν ὃ ἀνομίαν, οὕτως h ch. ν. 16 reff. δὲ ἡ ἐκ καρδίας * εἰς ὃν 190 ἀν- z John viii. 32, 36. ver. 22. ch. viii. 2,21. Gal. ν. 1 only+. Sir. a Acts vii. 6 reff. . see ch. ili. 5. e adj. here bis only. Wisd. xv. 7. Eur. Hec. 137. Acts xi. 18 reff. ν b Acts xvii. 25 ref. 17. ins καθαρας bef καρδιας A 13. 26 Chr,-inss(txty. 1), ex toto corde eth. 18. for δε, ovy CR! [arm]: om m 89. 62 lect-12 tol (copt). 19. for δουλα (twice), δουλευειν F latt [Orig-int, Ambrst ]. B Syr Sedul. induced by sin, in all its awful aspects and consequences :—and so throughout this passage and ch. vii.), or of obedience (τοῦ θεοῦ, sc.—obedience to Him who alone ought to be obeyed) unto righteousness (with righteousness as its result; not im- puted merely, nor implanted merely, but RIGHTEOUSNESS in its most general sense as the contrast to death,—the state of blessedness induced by holiness, and in- volving in it, as a less in a greater, eternal life: and so throughout this passage)? 17, 18.] The dilemma solved for them by reference to the matter or fact: that they were once servants of sin, but on receiving the gospel, obeyed its teaching : and consequently were freed from the service of sin, and became the servants of righteousness :—and this in the form of a thanksgiving to God (1 Cor. i. 14) whose work in them it was. There is a stress on ἦτε as referring to a state past. So Eph. v. 8: on account of which stress apparently the μέν, which would naturally follow it, is omitted. Ἰ τ eo διδαχῆς) Attr.: the simple construction would be ὑπηκούσατε τῷ τύπῳ Tis διδ. εἰς ὃν (or ὃν) παρεδόθητε, ye obeyed (ὑπ. on account of ὑπακοή above) from the heart (reff.) that form of teaching (so μόρφωσις ch. ii. 20: see examples in Fritzsche, vol, i. p. 418 ; most probably used of the practical norma agendi accompanying the doctrine of the gospel; so Calv., Luth., Beza, Reiche:—De W. thinks it is the Pauline form of teaching, of justification by faith, distinguished from the Judaistic) to which ye were delivered ({not as E. V., ‘which was delivered you’) this inver- sion to the passive agrees admirably with τύπος, as a mould, exemplar, or pattern after which they were to be fashioned : 50 κατὰ τὰ δόγματα τυποῦσθαι, Arrian. Enchir. ii. 19 (Thol.): and Beza,—‘ hoc dicendi genus magnam quandam emphasin om εἰς THY ανομιαν videtur habere. Ita enim significatur evan- gelicam doctrinam quasi instar typi cujus- dam esse, cui veluti immittamur, ut ejus figure conformemur, et totam istam trans- formationem aliunde provenire.’ (Thol.) And Chrys. remarks, τὸ παραδοθῆναι, τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ βοηθείαν αἰνίττεται. See on the construction, Winer, edn. 6, § 24. 2. b). 18: ᾿ἔλευθ. τ (Ge δικαιοσ.) And (this verse is closely united with the foregoing ; Riickert, Reiche, and Meyer think that it might be stated as a syllogistie conclu- sion, of which the dilemma is the major, and the fact of ver. 17 the minor) being freed from sin, ye were enslaved (see on next verse) to righteousness. 19. ] For the expression ἐδουλώθητε the Apostle apologizes: ‘it is not literally so; the servant of righteousness is no slave, under no yoke of bondage; but in order to set the contrast between the former and the new state better before you, I have used this word : I speak as a man (according to the requirements of rhetorical anti- thesis) on account of the (intellectual, as De W. and Thol.: not moral, as Meyer and Olsh.) weakness of your flesh (i.e. ‘ because you are σαρκικοί and not mvevua- τικοί, and want such figures to set the truth before you.’ Orig., Chrys., Theo- doret, Calv., Estius, Wetst., al., take these words in a totally different sense: "7 require of you nothing which your fleshly weakness will not bear’): for (explana- tory of ἐδουλώθ.) like as ye (once) ren- dered up your members (as) servants to impurity and to lawlessness (two divi- sions of auaprla—impurity, against a man’s self,—lawlessness against God), unto lawlessness (both which, axa. and avou., lead to ἀνομία, result in it: ‘qui justitie serviunt, proficiunt : ἄνομοι, ini- qui, sunt inigui, nihil amplius” Bengel: not ‘from one ἀνομία to another, as (Kcum., Theophyl., Luth., Grot., Erasm., «αὔραν een a | 17—238. πα ἢ νὺν Besides εἰς * ἀγιασμον. ἐλεύθεροι are τῇ * δικαιοσύνῃ. ΤΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 0 ὅτε γὰρ δοῦλοι ἦτε τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 373 , \ d r c lal e§ a A ὃ s β : παραστήσατε Ta“ μέλη ὑμῶν © OOVAA TH OLKALOTUIN i Paul (here bis ver. 22. 1 Cor. i. 30 al5.) only, exc. Heb. xii. 14. 1 Pet. 9 t = ‘ 21 τίνα οὖν * καρπὸν i. 2. 2 Macc. ἱ εἴ ε / τ ΠῚ ᾿ ’ fore “ n ’ / θ \ \ ‘ iv. 36 of TE TOTE 5 Ep OLS νυν επαισχυνεσ €, TO μὲν yap aa Υ̓ ο τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος. τῆς Pawaptias, ἢ δουλωθέντες δὲ τῷ θεῷ, ἱκαρπὸν ὑμῶν ἢ νιον, 39 τὰ γὰρ 4 ὀψώνια τῆς δὲ ᾿χάρισμω τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἐν χριστῷ “Inood κ᾿ aii. 19. p ver. 18. ili. 28. xiv. 32 only. aft ovrws ins xa Καὶ 7 tol Syr [coptt] arm Tert, Sedul. rec om μεν, with ACD°KL[P JN! rel [vulg copt arm] 21. [wore D!-gr(appy). ] 22 νυνὶ δὲ Ρ ἐλευθερωθέντες ? ἀπὸ > ; / \ , \ els ἰ ἁγιασμόν, τὸ δὲ 9 τέλος ζωὴν αἰώ- q Luke iii. 14. τ ΞΟ Valo, 262 xis ous dat., ver. 2 reff. 1 Cor. xiv. 20. l ch. i. 13 reff. ] ¥ ; sp EYETE TOV m= Lukeii. x τ 47. Acts iii. / 10, 12. iv. 21. Jer. i. 12. . nch. i. 16 reff. ο = 2 Cor. zi. Te 15. Phil. iii. 19. Heb. vi. 1 Pet. iv. Wisd. 1 Macc. ἁμαρτίας θάνατος, 17. 1 Cor. ix. 7. 2Cor.'xi. 8 only +. Esdr. iv. 56, for 2nd SovAa, οπλα A. Clem, Chr, Thl Gc [Damase Orig-int, Tert, Ambrst]: ins BD!FX3 syr Chr-mss Thdrt. 22. for δε, re(but corrd) δὲ", at end ins ἐστιν F latt(not fuld) | Orig-int, |. [23. om ra yap to αιωνιος (passing from αἰων. to αἰων.) P.| al.: because (De W.) ἀνομία is not an act, but a principle), 80 now render up your members (as) servants to righteous- ness (see ver. 16) unto (leading to, having as its result, perfect) sanctification (con- trast to ἀνομία, and both embracing their respective consequences). 20—23.] _ As a further urging of the above exhor- tations, the Apostle contrasts the end of their former life with that of their pre- sent. 20.] yap introduces a motive for the foregoing: but the verse [ properly ] belongs to the following: for ver. 22 is the contrast to it. Meyer and Fritz. think it to be an explanation of ver. 19, but are certainly mistaken. For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in relation to (dat. of regard or reference, Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 1) righteousness. There is doubtless a latent irony in the use of ἐλεύθεροι here; but it must not be brought out too strongly: it does not appear, till the end of that freedom is declared. 21.] ‘ Well, then, ye were free: and what was the benefit ?’ οὖν concedes and assumes. There are two ways of pointing: (1) that of E. V., carrying on the ques- tion to ἐπαισχύνεσθε, and supplying ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνοις before ἐφ᾽ οἷς, adopted by Chrys., (Ec., Vulg., Beza, Grot., Estius, Bengel, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Stuart, al. But this though good as far as construction is concerned, is inconsistent with the N. T. meaning of καρπός, which is ‘ actions,’ the JSruit of the man considered as the tree, not ‘ wages,’ or ‘reward, the fruit of his actions; see below, ver. 22, and ch. i. 13, note. So even Phil. i. 22 (see note). So that I much prefer (2. the punctuation of Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Theophyl., Luth., Melancth., Koppe, Flatt, Tholvek, Rickert, K6éllner, Olsh., Lachm., Griesb., De Wette, al., placing the interrogation at τότε, and making ἐφ᾽ οἷς v. ἐπαισχ. the answer. What fruit then had ye at that time? (Things, deeds) of which ye are now ashamed. TO μὲν yap TEX. ἐκ. 9.] the reason of their present shame. For the end (= virtually ὀψώνια, ver. 23, and would be a mere repetition of καρπός on the first method of punctuation above) of those things (those καρποί consisting of sinful acts) is death (death in the widest sense, see note on ver. 16,—phy- sical, which has been the end of sin, in which we are all involved,—-and spiritual and eternal, which will be the end of actual sin if followed out). 22. ] Contrast of your present state to that former one: freedom from sin as a mas- ter,—-servitude (compare ἀνθρώπινον λέγω, ver. 19) to God (a higher description than merely δικαιοσύνη, the actual antithesis to ἁμαρτία, ver. 18. The devil would be the corresponding antithetical power : and not unfrequently appears in the teaching of Paul: but usually in casual expressions, as Eph. iv. 27; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 26, not as the principal figure in a course of argu- ment),— fruit (see on καρπός, above, ver. 21,—and remark τὸν καρπόν, your fruit, fruit actually brought forth, q. ἃ. ἔχετε καρπόν, kal ὃ καρπὸς ὑμῶν ἁγιασμός) unto (leading unto perfect) sanctification,— and the end (governed by ἔχετε) life everlasting. 23.] The ends of the two courses placed pointedly and anti- thetically, and the inherent difference, that whereas death (see above)’ is the wages (6). = pay, or ration, of soldiers ; compare the similitude in ver. 13, and remarks there) of sin, earned and paid 374 ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. Vii. , ΄ ~ 7, Ἂ ΕῚ -. , meh.vin3 TO κυρίῳ ἡμῶν. VII. 1 Ἢ ™ ἀγνοεῖτε, ἀδελφοι, γινώ- aBcoF (reff.). , rn “ ¢ , , - ΚΙΓΡῚΕ nch-vi914 σκουσιν γὰρ νόμον λαλῶ, ' ὅτι ὁ νόμος " κυριεύει ° τοῦ ad Ἢ δ Ὁ : : , > 4? “ 4 A δ e \ 7 hkl Katt xix ὦ; ἀνθρώπου Ped P ὅσον P χρόνον ζῇ; 3 ἡ yap 4 ὕπανδρος (ὃ πο 17 Mark il. 27 al, \ A a > \ r , ͵ 4. \ ΕῚ ΄ ΄ [47] ΡῚ Cor. vit. 38. γυνὴ τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ " δέδεται νόμῳ: ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ 3 τΥ, ἃ. . © 2 ᾽ ey > / “ 3 Ν »" ΄ “ / 18. Deu. ἀνήρ, δ΄ κατήργηται “ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου " τοῦ ἀνδρός. ὃ ἡ dpa xii. 19. nr an ‘ ’ 4λ here only. w ᾿ i x ὶ vf 4 here ¢ Me οὖν ζῶντος ‘ro ἀνδρὸς μοιχαλὶς ΧΡΉΜΘΥΟΔΟΣ ἐὰν to si’ “yévntat ἀνδρὶ ® ἑτέρῳ' ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα 9. xli. 21 only. r — 1 Cor. vii. 27, 39. s ch. iii. 3 reff. tver.6. Gal. v. 4. Ἧι — ch. vi. 18,22. 2Cor. xi. 3, v gen. of reference, Mark 1. 4. John v. 29 bis. 2 Cor. ix. 13 al. Winer, edn. 6, 3 30. 2. B. w ch. vy. 18 reff. x here bis. Matt. xii. 39. xvi.4\|)Mk. Jamesiv.4. 2 Pet. ii. 14only. Ezek. xvi. 38 al. == Acts xi. 26 only. z~ here 3ce only. Levit. xxii. 12. Cuap. VII. 1. γιγνωσκουσιν L. 3. aft ζωντος, add yp G. Syr. down,— eternal life is no ὀψώνιον, nothing earned, but the free gift of God to His soldiers and servants ;—and that in (not ‘ through,’ —true enough, but not implied in ἐν, see above on ver. 11) Christ Jesus our Lord. VII. 1—6.] The explana- tion and proof of the assertion ch. vi. 14, οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν : the answer to the question of νὶ. 1ὅ having occupied vi. 16—23. 1—4.] The Christian is dead to the law by being dead with Christ, and has become His. 1.] Connect with ch. vi. 14, which is in fact the sentence immediately pre- ceding. Reiche and Meyer connect with vi. 23; ‘The gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord: this you can only doubt by being ignorant,’ &e. Krehl believes ch. vii. to be the expansion of ‘Death is the wages of sin,’—and ch. vili., of ‘the free gitt of God is eternal life” But not only does this division not hold, for much of ch. viii. regards the con- flict with sin and infirmity,—but the pro- minence of νόμος as the subject here for- bids the connexion with ὀψώνια τῆς auapr. θάνατος. The steps of the proof are these: Zhe law binds a man only so long as he lives (ver. 1):—e.g. a married woman is only bound to her husband so Jong as he lives (vv. 2, 3):—so also the Christian being dead with Christ and alive to Him is freed from the law (ver. 4). ἀδελφοί) Not addressed particularly to Jewish Christians : see below : but gene- rally to the Roman church. γινώσ- κουσιν γ. νόμ. AaA.] For I am speaking (writing) to men acquainted with the law; i.e. the persons to whom I address this epistle are such as know the law: not “1 speak to those who know the law,’ as if he were now addressing a different class of persons,—which would require τοῖς γὰρ a Deut. xxiv. 2 (4). ἐχρημάτιζε βασιλεύς, Diod. Sic. xx. 53. > : Jer. iii. 1, ver. 23 reff. 2. om 2nd του F(but not G). C χρημ. bef μοιχ. DEF latt goth [copt Orig-int, }. add ἡ γυνὴ A cupt Orig,[om,(and int,)] Chr,[om, }. att o ἀνὴρ ins avtns DF [d] γινώσκουσιν τὸν νόμον τοῦτό φημι, see Gal. iv. 21. Nor does the knowledge of the law here affirmed of the Romans prove that the majority of them were Jewish Christians: they may have been Gentile prosely tes. ὅτι ὁ νόμ. κυρ. τοῦ ἀνθρ. ΡΣ 1 that the (Mosaic: for of that, and not of any other law, is the whole argument) law hath power over 8 man (not ὁ νόμ. Tod ἀνθρώπου, ‘a man’s law,’ and κυριεύει absolute, ‘ has dominion,’ —as Hawm. and Dr. Burton, which is very questionable Greek and still worse sense) as long time as he (the man, see vv. 4 and 6:—not the law, as Origen, Erasm., Grot., Estius, al., which would introduce the irrelevant question of the abrogation of the law, whereas the whole matter in argu- ment is the relation of the Christian to the law) lives. 2.1 For (not merely =e. ¢., but, as Thol., the example is itself the proof) the married (ref.) woman is bound by the law to the living husband: but if the husband die, she is set free from (lit. annulled from) the law of (‘ regard- ing, compare reff. and 6 νόμος τοῦ λεπροῦ, Levit. xiv. 2) the husband (no hypallage). 3.1 And accordingly (ἄρα οὖν, ‘ from the same consideration, it follows that’) while her husband lives she ehali be called (see ref, :—and on this use of the future, as declaring what shall follow on a condition being fulfilled, Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 6) an adulteress, if she attach her- self to (become the wife of) another man: but if her husband die, she is free from the law (τοῦ avdpds), so that (it matters little whether τοῦ μή is the resulé or the purpose: it is better always to keep the latter in view, and to regurd the result in such sentences as for the moment spoken of as the purpose to which its constituents contributed) she is not an adulteress, 1—5. ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. Τὺ ’ ἊΝ la) r A = \ , ἐστὶν ἃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμον», ° τοῦ μὴ εἶναι αὐτὴν * μοιχαλίδα ©} Cor. x.13 ret. τὰ γενομένην ἀνδρὶ *” ἑτέρῳ. ἃ ἐθανατώθητε © τῷ νόμῳ διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ χριστοῦ, εἰς \ ᾿ , [ὦ nw e ΄ al τὸ τὰ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ὃ ἑτέρῳ, TH ! £ καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ θεῷ. e dat., ch. vi. 10, 11. i. 6,10 only. Hab. iii. 17, Wisd. x. 7 only. 4. καὶ vues bef αδελῴφοι μου δὲ [goth arm Damasc ]. and -φορεσαι in ver ὃ F, 5. nunv D![-gr]. though she have attached herself to another man. So far all is clear. Kut when we come to the application of the example, ¢his must carefully be borne in mind, as tending to clear up all the confusion which has here been found by Commentators :—that the Apostle is insist- ing on the fact, that DFATH DISSOLVES LEGAL OBLIGATION : but he is not draw- ing an exact parallel between the persons in his example, and the persous in his ap- plication. The comparison might be thus made in terms common to both : (1) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between man and wife: therefore the wife is at liberty to be married to another :—(2) Deuth has dissolved the legal obligation between the law and us: therefore we are at liberty to be married to another. So far the comparison is strict. Further it will not hold: for in the example, the liberated person is the survivor,—in the thing treated, the liberated person is the dead person. And so tar from this being an oversight or an inaccuracy, it is no more than that to which, more or less, all comparisons are liable; and no more can be required of them than that they should fit, in the kernel and intent of the simili- tude. If it be required here to apply the example further, there is no difficulty nor inconsistency in saying (as Chrys. al.) that our first Husband was the Law, and our second is Christ; but then it must be carefully borne in mind, that we are freed, not by the law having died to us, (which matter here is not treated,) but by our having died to the law. It is not necessary with Caly. and Tholuck, to suppose that in ver. 4 there is an euphemistic inversion, ‘we are dead to the law,’ instead of ‘the law is dead to us;? indeed such a supposi- tion would, from what is said above, much weaken the argument, which rests on our being slain with Christ, and so freed from the law. 4.) So then (inference both trom ver. 1, the general fact, and vv. 2, 3, the example), my brethren, ye also (as well as the woman in my example, who is dead to the law of her husband) were 4 ὥςτε ἀδελφοί μου, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἴ ἐγερθέντι, ἵνα - ff \ eo “ ' ὃ ὅτε yap ἣμεν ἐν TH" σαρκί, f 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff. (-pos, Acts xiv. 17.) om Ist ev F[-gr]. d Matt. x. 21 al5. ip Gospp. ch. vill. 13, 36 (from Ps. xliii. 22). 2 Cor. vi. 9. 1 Pet. iii. 18. 2 Chron. xxiii. 15. Matt. xiii. 23 ||. Mark iv. 28. h = ch. viii. 12 al. g here bis. Col. see note. μοι F, καρποφυρεσωμεν slain to the law (crucified, see Gal. ii. 19, 20. The more violent word is used instead of ἀπεθάνετε, to recall the violent death of Christ, in which, and after the manner of which, believers have been put to death to the law and sin,—and the historic aorist to remind them of the great Event by which this was brought about) by means of the (crucified) Body (compare διὰ τῆς mpostopas Tod σώματος τοῦ Ino. xp., Heb. x. 10) of Christ, that you should become attached to another, (even) to Him who was raised from the dead (alluding both to the comparison in vv. 2, 3, γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ, and to ch. vi. 4, 5, ἵνα ὥςπ. ἠγέρθη χριστὸς x.7.A.), that we should (here strictly final, as Thol., Meyer, De W., ἄς. Not merely ecbatic, as Fritzsche) bring forth fruit (alluding to καρπόν, ch. iv. 22, and at the same time (Luke i. 42) carrying on the similitude of mar- riage. Not that this latter must be pressed, for there is only an allusion to it: nor on the other hand need the least objection be raised to such an understanding of the words, as any one conversant with St. Paul’s way of speaking on this subject will at once feel: compare 2 Cor. xi.2; Eph. v. 30—82) to (dat. commodi, ‘to the honour of’) God. 5, 6.1 In the fleshly state (betore we died with Christ) sznful passions which were by the Law worked in us and brought forth fruit to death: but now that we are dead to thelaw,we are no longer servants vin the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit. The Law (ch. v. 20, alluded to again vi. 14) was the multiplier of sin To this thought, and the inferences from it, the Apostle now recurs, and contrasts the state under the jaw in this respect, with that of the believer in Christ. For when we were in the flesh (= virtually, “under the Jaw:” see the antithesis in ver. 6: so almost all Commentators, an- cient and modern,—except Beza, Bengel, Reiche, and Thol., who take it to mean the mere: fleshly state, in which the Spirit is not yet energizing, and Ambrst., Calov., Olsh., al., who interpret it of the state of the unregenerate. But how doce ἐν TH O76 i Paul, ch. viii. 18al7. Heb. i179, 10. x, 32. 1 Pet. i. 11 al3. only t. k gen. 6bj., ch. i. 26. 1 Acts iii. 16. 1 Pet. i. 21. m Matt. xiv. 2 | Mk. Paul, 1 Cor. xii. 6 4115. James v. 16 only. Isa. xli. 4. v. 4. ch. i. 18. n ch. vi. 13 reff. 2 Thess. ii. 6. t ch. ii. 29. 2 Cor. iii. 6. only. w ch. iil. 4 reff v ch. iii. 5 reff. 6. [for vu, νυν F.] ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. Ὁ ver. 12 reff. rch. vi. 6. Acts xx. 19 reff. Vi: . , fn et. ~ ! ~ ΄ 9 τὰ ἱπαθήματα τῶν * ἁμαρτιῶν ta’ διὰ τοῦ νόμου ™ ἐνηρ- γεῖτο ἐν τοῖς " μέλεσιν ἡμῶν 5 εἰς τὸ ὃ καρποφορῆσαι τῷ θανάτῳ ὃ νυνὶ δὲ P κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου. » “ 3 δι q , θ ef Τ᾿ ὃ , e lal ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ “4 κατειχόμεθα, ὥςτε * δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς , ΄ \ > U ΄ ἐν " καινότητι ' πνεύματος καὶ οὐ ἃ παλαιότητι ‘ γραμματος.᾿ a € fe Ἁ ΄ 7ν Τί οὖν " ἐροῦμεν ; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία ; © μὴ γένοιτο" p ver. 2. q = (John sch. vi.4 only. Ezek. xlvii. 12 u here only+. Eurip. Hel. 1062. (-ος, ch. vi. 6.) rec αποθανοντος (see note): του θανατου DF latt Jer: txt ABCKL[P] rel am! syrr copt goth «th arm Bas, Chr, Cyr[-p Did, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase [Orig-int, | Tert. σαρκί denote ‘under the law?’ Some say, on account of its carnality, as more or less Theodoret, (Ec., Hammond, Grot., al.: some, on account of the power of sin under the law,—as Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., al. : best of all is it to understand it, with Rickert, Kéllner, Meyer, Fritz., De Wette, as pointing to the period before death with Christ, in which we were sensual and sinful: so that ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ εἶναι forms a contrast with θανατωθῆναι. But, as De W. observes, it must not with Fritz. be rendered ‘ quum viveremus,’ as this is never the sense of ἐν (τῇ) σαρκὶ (elvar),—not even 2 Cor. x. 3: nor, I may add, Phil. i. 24) the stirrings (‘passions of sins,’ objective gen., which Jed to sins: not by hendiadys for παθήμ. ἁμαρτωλά, which, as always, destroys the force) of sins, which were by means of the law (the zncite- ments,—not the sins, in this place, though ultimately it was so, the incitement lead- ing tothe sin. The full meaning of διὰ τοῦ νόμου must be kept, ‘which were by means of the law :’ i. 6. the law occasioned them. Locke argues for the rendering, ‘ under the law,’ ‘in the time of the law,’ which would destroy the force of the argument connect- ing the law with sin, here put so strongly as to require the question of ver. 7) wrought (‘energized :’ not pass., but middle: see note on Gal. v. 6) in our members (the in- struments of sin, ch. vi. 13) to the bring- ing forth of fruit (see on τοῦ μή ver. 3: the καρποφ. was the final object of their energizing, not the mere result. In καρποφ. here, the allusion to progeny is very distant, if it exists at all. Meyer makes it refer to an adulterous state, and personifies θάνατος ; but this can hardly be) unto death (only a verbal antithesis to τῷ θεῷ : —‘ whose end was death ’): 6.| But now (opposed to ére, ver. 5) have we been delivered (annulled) from the law, having died (to that) wherein we were held (the reading ἀποθανόντος cannot even be om nuas BF { Tert, ]. brought into discussion, as it appears to be only a conjecture of Beza’s, arising from a misunderstanding of the text (and of Chry- sostom’s commentary, who did not read it),—-see the analogy explained on ver. 1: the other reading, τοῦ θανάτου, is a cor- rection to suit ver.5. So chat ἐν @ either refers directly to νόμου, ἀποθανόντες being absolute and parenthetic, or we must under- stand ἐκείνῳ aft. ἀποθ. 1 prefer the latter, as suiting better the style of tle Apostle and the whole connexion. The omission of the demonstrative pron. probably is cecasioned by a desire to give especial prominence to the fact of ἀποθανόντες, or perhaps on account of the prepos. ἀπό in composition, as in ch. x. 14, πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέσωνται εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν ;), so that we serve (not ‘should serve, as E. V.: the pres. describes the actual state : —understand ‘ God’ after serve) in the newness of the Spirit (i.e. of the Holy Spirit of God, who originates and pene- trates the Christian life:—the first men- tion of the Spirit so much spoken of in ch. viii.) and not in the oldness of the letter (the law being only a collection of precepts and prohibitions, but the Gospel a service of freedom, ruled by the Spirit, whose presence is liberty). καινότης and παλαιότης are not as in ch. vi. 4, καινότητι (wis, attributes of the genitives which follow them, but states in which those genitives are the ruling elements. 7—25.| An explanation of the part which the law has in bringing out sin, by example of the Apostle’s own case. In this most important and difficult passage, it is of the first consequence to have a clear view of the form of illustration which the Apostle adopts, and of the reason why he adopts it. The former has been amply treated of by almost all Commentators : the latter, too generally, has escaped their en- quiry. But it furnishes, if satisfactorily treated, a key to the other. I ask then first, Ne j { ΑΣΑ, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ. ll. Gal. iv. 15. why St. Paul suddenly changes here to the Jirst person? Aud the auswer is, because he is about to draw a conclusion negativing the question (6 νόμος auaptta;) upon purely subjective grounds, proceeding on that which passes within, when the work of the law is carried on in the heart. And he is about to depict this work of the law by an example which shall set it forth in vivid colours, in detail, in its connexion with sin inaman. Whatexample then so apposite, as his own ? Introspective as his character was, and purified as his inner vision was by the Holy Spirit of God, what example would so forcibly bring out the inward struggles of the man which prove the holiness of the law, while they shew its inseparable con- nexion with the production of sin ? If this be the reason why the first person is here assumed (and I can find no other which does not introduce into St. Paul’s style an arbitrariness and caprice which it least of all styles exhibits), then we must dismiss from our minds all exegesis which explains the passage of any other, in the first instance, than of Paul himself : him- self indeed, as an exemplar, wherein others may see themselves: but not himself zn the vidual men. This being done, there arises now a question equally important,—Of what self is it that he speaks throughout this passage? Is it always the same? Ifso, is it always the carnal, unregenerate self ? or alwaysthe spiritual, regenerate? Clearly not the latter always; for to that self the historical account of vv. 7—13 will not apply, and still less the assertion, in the present, of ver.14, Clearly net the former always : for to that the assertion of ver. 22 will not apply, nor that of ver. 25. Is it always the complex se/f, made up of tlie prevailing spiritual-regenerate, with the remains of the carnal-unregenerate? Wot always this : although this seems nearer to satisfying the conditions: for i in the descrip- tion ver. 9, ἐγὼ ἔζων χωρὶς νόμου ποτέ, and _in ἐγὼ σάρκινός εἶμι κιτ.Χ. Ver. er. 14, there is no complexity, but the ἐγώ is clearly the carnal man. Therefore not always the same. If not always the same, where is the distinction? If we look carefully, the Apostle himself will guide us to it. Having carried on the ἐγώ unqualified and unex- plained till ver. 18, he there has occasion to say οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἀγαθόν. But he is con- scious that, as he had written to the Cor. (1 Cor. iii. 16), τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὕμιν: he therefore finds it necessary to cor- ΤΡ POMALOTS:; *éyvwv εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου: THD > Winer, edn. 6, 911 Y TE x av omitted, John ix. 33. xv, 22. X1x. [2 Cor. x. 8.1 ἢ 42. 2. γ — Chui ΠΣ rect himself by an explanation, what ἔγώ he meant, and adds to ἐν ἐμοί,---τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκίμου. So that ἐγώ there is equiva- lent to 7 σάρξ μου, i.e. ‘myself in my state of life to the law and sin, and acting according to the motions of sin.’ Again, when the approval of the law of God is affirmed (not the mere θέλω, which I will treat by and by), it is not barely ἐγώ, but to avoid confusion, in ver. 22 the Apostle adds κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον, and in ver. 25, pretixes αὐτός ; in both cases shewing that (see notes below) he speaks of the complex man, himself made up of an ἔσω, and an ἔξω υλυραεθε, of ὁ νοῦς and ἡ σάρξ. Are we then justified in assuming, that up to ver. 22 the carnal-unregenerate self is spoken of, but after that the complex self? Such a supposition would not be consistent with the assertion of the θέλω from ver. 15 onwards: 70 such will existing in the car- nal unregenerate man. 1 believe the true account will be nearly as follows :—from ver. 7—18 incl. is historical, and the ἐγώ there is the historical self, under the work- ing of conviction of sin, and shewing the work of the law; in other words, the car- nal self in the transition state, under the first motions towards God generated by the law, which the law could never have per- fected. Then at ver. 14, Paul, according to a habit very common to him, keeps hold of the carnal self, and still having it in view, transfers himself into his present position, —altering the past tense into the present, still however meaning by ἐγώ (in ver. 14), n σάρξ μου. But, having passed into the present tense, he immediately xaingles with this mere action of the law upon the natural conscience, the motions of the will towards God which are in conflict with the motions towards sin in the members. And hence arises an apparent verbal confusion, because the ἐγώ e. g. in ver. 17, of whom it is said, οὐκ ἔτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτό, being the entire personality, the complex self, is of far wider extent than the ἐγώ of whom it is said οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τουτέστιν ἐν TH σαρκί μου, ἀγαθόν. But the latter ἐγώ, in this part of the chapter, is shewn to be (vv. 17, 20) no longer properly ἐγώ, but 7 οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ duaptia,—and so it passes altogether out of sight after ver. 20, and its place is taken by the actual then exist- ing complex self of Paul, compounded of the regenerate spiritual man, sympathizing with God’s law, serving God’s law, in con- flict with the still remaining though deca- dent carnal man, whose essence it is to serve the law of sin, to bring captive to the law 378 MPO: PEM AIOE: VII. chit ἡ γὰρ * ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ἤδειν, εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν Οὐκ of sin. This state of conflict and division that, but .... There surely is no con- against one’s self would infallibly bring trast to ὁ νόμ. ἁμαρτία. see ver. 8. about utter ruin, and might well lead to οὐκ ἔγνων) ‘non cognoscebam, ni... οὗ despair (ver. 24), but for the rescue which - 1 was living in a state of ignorance God’s grace has provided by Jesus Christ of sin, wereitnot.... This construction our Lord. And this rescue hus been such, comprehends in it οὐκ ἂν ἔγνων as a con- that I, the αὐτὸς ἐγώ of ver. 25, the real sequence, and is therefore often said to be self, the nobler and better part of the man, put for it; but it has its propriety, as here, serve, with the νοῦς (see there), the law of where a historical state is being described, God: whereas it is only with the flesh, ac- and the unconditional indicative is more cording to which (ch. viii. 4) Jdo not walk, appropriate. Tholuck makes it = ‘non but overcome and mortify it, that 1 serve cognoveram, ni....,’ in which ease the (am still subject to) the law of sin. Then indic. expresses more plainly than the con- this subjection of the flesh to the law of junctive the absolute dependence of the sin, to the δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς, is fully set fact on the condition. There is some out, in its nature,—consequences to the car- difficulty in understanding the mutual nal,—and uses to the spiritual,—in ch. viii. relation of the clauses, τὴν du. οὐκ ἔγνων, Any thing like a summary of the exe- and τήν Te yap ἐπιθ. οὐκ ἤδειν. [Ὁ is well gesis of this passage would be quite beyond known that τε differs from καί, in not my limits. 1 must refer the student tocom- coupling things co-ordinate, but attach- mentaries on this epistle alone,—and espe- ing things subordinate, to a former. Thus cially to that of 'Tholuck, where a complete and masterly history is given. It may suffice here to say, that most of the ancients suppose ἐγώ to represent mankind, or the Jews generally, and the whole to be taken chronologically,—to ver. 9 as before the law, after ver. 9 as under the law. This was once Augustine’s view, Prop. 44 in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2071, but he afterwards changed it (Retract. 1. 23, vol. i. p. 620) and adopted in the main that advocated above. The default of a history of the exegesis will be found to be in some measure com- pensated by the account of opinions given under the separate verses below. 7.] τί οὖν ép., see note, ch. vi. 1. ὁ v. Gpaprtia;| Is the law (not, as Jowett, ‘ vonscience, but in our case, the revealed law of God, which awoke the conscience to action) sin t—not ‘the cause of sin,’ which in one sense the Apostle would not have denied,—but sin, abstract for cou- crete, sinful, or, as Bengel, ‘causa peccati peccaminosa.’ 6 νόμος itself being ab- stract, that which is predicated of it is abstract also. he contrast is, 6 νόμος ἅγιος, ver. 12. The question itself refers back to ver. 5, τὰ παθήματα τῶν Guap- τιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου. It is asked, not by an objector, but by the Apostle himself, in anticipation of an objection. ἀλλά] Is but here in contrast to 6 νόμ. ἅμαρτ., meaning, ‘so far from that, —or is it a qualification of μὴ γένοιτο, meaning ‘ but still it is true, that....?’ Neither ex- planation exactly suits the context, which is, by a proper elucidation of the law’s working as regards sin, to prove it to be holy. 1 would rather understand ἀλλά, but what I mean is... .,—I say not Thucyd. i. 9 begins ᾿Αγαμέμνων τέ μοι Sone? . . . .» .on which Poppo remarks (cited by ‘Thol.). ‘Sequitur exemplum aucte Grecorum opulenti#.... ductuin ex rebus Agamemnonis et causis expedi- tionis Trojane ;’ an example being a subor- dinate verification of a general categorical statement. ‘The yap also shews that the second clause is subordinated to, and ai- leged in substantiation of the first. Then what is apaptia? Is it sin in act, or sin in principle,—the principle of sin? Not sin in act, so that au. οὐκ &yv. should mean, with sin, i.e. ‘had not sinned? as Fritz.: for then the law would have truly and actually been the cause of sin: nor, sin in act, so that the meaning were, ‘I had not known the nature of a sinful act : for this would not agree with the subordination of ἐπιθυμία below: the ἐπεθ. being more gene- ral (πᾶσαν ἐπιθ.) than the particular acts which it induced. But the reference must be to sin in principle, the principle of sin : I had not recognized such a thing as sin, but by means of the law. So Calv., Melancth., Calov., Riickert, Kélln., Olsh., Thol., De Wette. The law here is in the full sense of the Mosaic law as regarded himself,—not excluding the wider sense on which I have insisted in the former part of the Epistle when applied to others. τήν τε yap...) For neither (‘neque enim’) had I known (by experience: ‘known any thing of’) coveting (the motisns of the flesh towards sin,—whether acted on or not,—whether consented to or not :—this motion he would not have per- ceived, hecause he was simply moving with it) if the law had not said, Thou shalt ABCDF KL[P jx abcaf ghk) mn ol7 [11] ‘I had not entered into contact ae ee ee βκ...».}ε 8, 9. a2 , Seo by? \ ον lal ie ut a , διὰ « τῆς Exon. ἐπιθυμήσεις ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα ἡ ap PTla ola Peers = ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 919 ἘσΈΥ. ὁ ἐντολῆς ‘xatnpyucato ἐν ἐμοὶ “ πᾶσαν ὅ ἐπιθυμίαν" 2 Aho . is γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία ὅ νεκρά. 9 ἐγὼ δὲ " ἔζων fy wpig jamesiv.3 @MpOt = . € James iv. 2, x p τ p ,ὔ Α k > ᾿ τ ὃ Ν C “ c ῃ “ e ΄ x μ᾿ tanya νομου 'TTOTE. eAGovons o€ “τῆς " ἐντολῆς ἢ ApapTia ΡΣ δες v. 12. xi. 12 bis. Gal. v.13. 1Tim.v. 14 only. P. Ezek. v. 7 only. ce = Luke xxiii. δ6. 1 Tim. vi. 14. d ch. iv. 5 reff. e -- Acts xx. 19 reff. f ch. iii. 21 reff. g = James ii. 17 al. h (subjective, here only. 7. om τε F latt [copt Orig-int,]. 8. om δε D!(and lat’). i — John ix. 13. ch. xi. 30 al. for 2nd νομὸς, Aovyos L. rec κατειργασατυ, with AB2CFKLR rel: txt BID[P] d, ins 7 bef auapria δὲ [Meth, Chr, Gennad-e, Isid-e, ]. « = but objective, Gal. iii, 23, 20. επιθυμησης Ki P}. aft νεκρὰ ins nv F latt Syr fcopt arm Orig-int,] Jer Aug Sedul Ambrst Pel [pref K goth]. 9. εν B: εζουν 17. not covet (reff Exod. Deut.). “ Covet,’ in the above sense. The Apostle omits all the objects there specified, and merely lays hold of the idea contained in ἐπιθυμήσεις. And it may well be said and strictly, that the ‘ coveting’ there spoken of would lead to all kinds of sin—therefore murder, adultery, &c., if carried out: and that the prohibition of desire there serves as an example of what the law actually forbids elsewhere. 8.] But (proceeding with the development of sin by means of the law) sin (the sinful principle or propensity, but without any conscious personification on the part of the Apostle,—see some excellent remarks on personification in Tholuck) having found occasion (ἀφορμή, as its derivation shews, means more than mere opportunity,—it indicates the furnishing the material and ground of attack, the wherewith and whence to attack. The words here are not to be joined, as Luth., Olsh., Meyer, with διὰ τ. ἐντολῆς [which belongs to κατηργάσατο, see below | :—for (1) ἀφορμ. λαβεῖν διά would not express whence the ἀφορμή is taken, as παρά or ex, but only by what means some ἀφ. is taken from some source,—which would not here suit the Apostle’s meaning, seeing that the source itself was the command- meut,—and (2) ver. 13, διὰ Tod ay. κατεργ.; decides the matter here,—-but absolutely, as frequently, see Wetst.) by means of the commandment (not = τοῦ νόμου, but the tenth commandment, the prohibition in question) wrought in me (not ‘ wrought out,’ ‘brought into action,’ but ‘origi- nated’ [using this commandment as its instrument ]) all (manner) of coveting ; for without the law sin is (not ‘was:’ the omission of the verb substantive shews the sentence to be a locus communis,— and compare ch. iv. 15) dead (powerless and inactive: compare 1 Cor. xv. 56, 7 δύναμις τ. ἁμαρτίας 6 vdpos). This deadness of sin without the law must not be understood as meaning that sin was committed but not recognized, the con- science being not informed nor awakened : such a statement would be frve, but would not touch the matter argued here. Eras- mus (Thol.) well explains the vexpa,— ‘Qnum ante legem proditam (but see be- low) quedam peccata nescirem, quedam ita scirem, ut mihi tamen licere putarein, quod vetita non essent,—levius ac lan- guidius sollicitabatur animus ad peccan- dum, ut frigidius amamus ea, quibus ubi libeat potiri fas sit. Ceeteruim legis indicio proditis tot peccati formis, universa cupidi- tatum cohors irritata prohibitione ccepit acrius ad peccandum sollicitare.?, Compare also Prov. ix. 17, and (Wetst.) Ovid. Amor. ii. 19. 8, ‘Quod licet ingratum est, quod non licet acrius urit:? and ib. iii. 4. 17, ‘ Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata :’ and Seneca, de Clem. i. 23 (Thol.)}, ‘ Parricide cum lege ccperunt, et illis facinus pena monstravit ’ and a remark- able passage from Cato’s speech in Livy xxxiv. 4, ‘Nolite eodem loco existimare, Quirites, futuram rem, quo fuit, antequam lex de hoc ferretur. Et hominem improbum non accusari tutius est, quam absolvi, et luxuria non mota tolerabilior esset, quam erit nunc, ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irritata, deinde emissa.’ 9.1 It is a great question with Interpreters, of what period Paul here speaks. Those who sink his own personality, and think that he speaks merely as one of mankind, or of the Jews, understand it of the period before the law was given: some, of Adam in Paradise before (?) the prohibition: those who see Paul himself throughout the whole think that be speaks,— some, of his state as a Pharisee: this however would necessitate the understanding the legal death which follows, of his conver- sion, which cannot well be: some, of his state as a child, before that freedom of the will is asserted which causes rebellion against the law as the will of another: so Meyer, Thol., al. Agreeing in some mea- sure with the last view, 1 would extend the limits further, and say that he speaks of all that time, be it mere childhood or much more, before the law began its work 980 ITPOS) ῬΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂ΣΙ VIE , / \ ’ itukexv.21 1 ἀνέζησεν, 10 ἐγὼ δὲ ἢ ἀπέθανον" καὶ τι εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ (32. ch. xiv. 9. Rev. xy. 5 v.r.) only t. m = 1 Cor. iv. 2 reff. n ellips., ver. 5. o — Matt. xix. 17. Deut. xxx. 15. p= ch. v.12, q ver. 8 reff. rch. xvi. 18. 1 Cor. iii. 18. 2 Cor. ᾿ xi. 3. 2 Thess. li. 3. > “ ΑΗ , δι᾿ αὐτῆς " ἀπέκτεινεν. t μέν solitar.. Actsi. 1 (and note). iii. 18. Col. ii. 23. Heb. xii. 9 al. ν ch. ii. 10 reff. w ch. iii. 4 reff. ἡ " εἰς °Cwnv, αὕτη "els Ρ θώνατον. / ‘ ? \ ἃ ἐντολὴ ἃ ἁγία Kai δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή. 1 Tim. ii. 14 only. P. Exod. viii. 29 Β &c. only. 11) yap ἁμαρτία Tadopunv λαβοῦσα διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς " ἐξηπάτησέν με, Kal ς © e \ / c μὴ ΄ 12 ὥςτε ὁ ' μὲν νόμος ἅγιος, καὶ ἡ 13 ν Τὸ οὖν " ἀγαθὸν > \ > 4 θ 4 Ww \ , = >] ’ Cue / ‘7 ἐμοὶ ἐγένετο θάνατος ; “un yEevolTo’ ἀλλ ἡᾶμαρ Tia, wa s%= 2 Cor, in. 6. u 2 Pet. ii. 12. Susan. 56 Theod Winer, § 63, i. 2. e. y- 10. om 2nd ἡ Lm! 48. 77. 100 [Meth,} Chr-ms. 13. [for ro ουν, τιουν ro P Meth. ] rec for eyevero, yeyove (corrn, the historic aor not being understood), with KL rel Chr Cyr-c Gennad-e Thdrt ec Thi: om F: txt ABCDN[P 47(Tischdf) ] Meth. Damasc. within him,—before the deeper energies of lis moral nature were aroused (see on ἐλθούσης below). But (ἔζων opposed, but only formally, to νεκρά, and so having δέ: so Meyer and De W.) I was alive (not merely ‘lived, ‘went on,’ but em- phatic, ‘vivus eram, as Aug., i.e. ‘lived and flourished,’—contrasted with ἀπέθανον below) without the law (the law having no recognized place in my moral existence) once; but when the commandment (above, ver. 8) came (purely subjective ; not ‘was enacted,’ ‘came in,’ —but ‘ came to me,’ as we say, ‘ came home to me,’ “ was brought home to me’), sin sprung into life (not ‘revived ? however true it may be that sin was merely dormant, the idea insisted ov here, is, that it was dead and came to life, began to live and flourish :—but this is not to be compared with ἀνέβλεψα in John ix. 11; see note there), 10. | but I died (ceased to live-and-flourish as before,—fell into that state of unhappiness, which even afterwards under the gospel he calls θάνατος, ver. 24, ch. viii. 2): and (not an additional particular, but = ‘and so,’ merely changing the subject from ‘I,’ to ‘the commandment’) the commandment which was for (tending to) life (compare ch. x. 5, 6 ποιήσας αὑτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς, and reff. there : the life is one of prosperity primarily, but capable of, and indeed requiring (x. 5) a higher interpretation), this (very com- mandment) (αὕτη directs attention in a marked way to the antecedent subject : so frequently αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος : see Matt. xxiv. 13: Winer, edn. 6, § 23. 4) was found (subjective—oi« εἶπεν ὅτι ἣ ἐντολὴ γέγονέ μοι θάνατος, ἀλλ᾽ εὑρέθη, τὸ και- νὸν καὶ παράδοξον τῆς ἀτοπίας οὕτως ἑρμηνεύων, Chrys.) by me (to be) unto (tending to) death (explained on ἀπέθ. above). - 11.) For (explanatory how ver. 10 happened) sin (the sinful prin- ciple within me) having found occasion αλλ, so BCF[ P] a Καὶ m[ (Scr, e contra ( L L( (absol. as in ver. 8, where see note’,—by means of the commandment deceived me (there is a plain reference to the Tempter deceiving Eve, which was accomplished by means of the commandment, exciting doubt of and objection to it, and lust after the forbidden thing: 536 reff. 2 Cor., 1 Tim.), and by it slew me (i.e. brought me into the state of misery and death, mentioned in ver. 10;—but there is an allusion again to the effect of the fall as the act of the Tempter). 12.| So that (seeing it was not the law in general, nor this par- ticular commandment, that wrought covet- ing in me, but the sinful principle in me taking advantage of these, which them- selves were given εἰς ζωήν and not eis θάνατον) the law (indeed) is holy (μέν, as understanding a δέ to fellow—‘ but it was sin,’ &c.: which does follow in an ex- panded form, in ver. 13), and the com- mandment (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, ver. 8) holy and just and good (Theodoret thus ac- counts for the epithets: ἁγίαν mposnyd- pevoey ws τὸ δέον διδάξασαν᾽ δικαίαν δέ, ὡς ὀρθῶς τοῖς παραβάταις τὴν ψῆφον ἐξ- eveykovoay’ ἀγαθὴν δέ, ὡς ζωὴν τοῖς φυλάτ- τουσιν εὐτρεπίζουσαν. See also 1 Tim i. 8). 13.] Did then the good (= ‘ that which was good,’ i. 6. 7 ἐντολή, but made abstract for the sake of greater contrast) become death (so 6 νόμ., ἁμαρτία, ver. 7) to me? Was it, after all, the command- ment itself that became to me this death of which I speak ? Far from it: but (it was) sin (that became death to me. The construction adopted by Vulg., Luth., al, ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἵνα φανῇ au., διὰ τ. ay. μοι κατεργαζομένη [ἣν] θάνατον, is hardly admissible) ; -- αὖ it might appear (be shewn to be) sin, (by) working death to me by means of the good (that which was good: see above. The misuse and perversion of good is one of the tests whereby the energy of evil is detected; so that sin, by its perversion of the (good) A®CDF KL[P JS abcedft ghkl mnol7 [17] td }0—15. ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. 331 A ς me , ὃ Ν vy χὰ ς ὩΣ θ a x rd = φανῇ ἁμαρτία, διὰ ἡ τοῦ " ἀγαθοῦ μοι * κατεργαζομενη «ch. ii.9 reff y=e Ω , / > \ ΄ ‘ θάνατον, ἵνα ¥ γένηται * καθ᾽ * ὑπερβολὴν ὃ ἁμαρτωλὸς 1) Ὁ ’ \ an > “- apapTla διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς. d 2 anne se 4 , . f . i. 13 only. TTVEVUMLATLKOS εστιν, EYW δὲ σαρκινος EL Lb TET PALLEVOS ἃ y ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. ech. 11. 2. ili. 19. viii. 22, 28. π We ΤΥ lial. xi. 19. xxxvi. 26 only. (-ικός, ch. xv. 27.} 15. (Acts iv. 34 rett.) Treg) 47]. (A uncert.)) 1 Cor. viii. 1, 4. 15 δ \ x re 7, > , é (z). O Yap “ κατεργάζομαιν οὐ γινώσκω" ἵν.τ,1τ. only. P.+ (-βάλλειν, 2 Cor. iii. 10. -λλόντως, 2 Cor. xi. 23.) ZOOL. Vals e 1 Cor. iii. 1. . iil. 4. “YG. “1 Cori xiii. 1 al. 14 ¢ ἫΝ \ ο “΄ ΄ ͵ z 1 Cor. xii. 31, οι αμεν yap oTlt O VOLLOS 2 Gor..¥ 9. iv. 172 (Gal, as above 2 Cor. xii. 7 Ὁ = here only. (ch. iii. 7 reff.) dch.i. 11. 1 Cor. 2 Chron. xxxii. 8. Ezek. 4 Kings xvii. 17. 1 Macc. i. 1 Join iii. 2, 14 al. 2 Cor. iii. 3. Heb. vii. 16 only. f = here only. ἡ auaptia bef αμαρτωλος DF tol [copt] arm Ang, Ambrst. 14. tor yap, δὲ A D/-gr] L syr-mg Orig,/int, Bas,| Cyr{-p,} Thdrt Ang,: om eth arm Aug, Jer,: txt BCFK[ PN rel [latt syrr copt goth] Orig,[int, Meth, ] Tit, Did, Chr, { Damasc Hil, ]. rec σαρκικος (corrn to more usual and appy more appro- priate word ? but the two are constantly confused), with K(e sil) Li P|&*% Orig, Chr, { Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Phot, Thi (Ec: txt ABCDFX! b! 0 17 Meth, Ephr, Nyss, Bas, [mss vary] Cyr[-p, | Damase. commandment into a cause (evil) of death, was shewn in its real character as sin. That this is the rendering is evident by the following clause, which is parallel with it. Erasm., Walla, Elsner, Dr. Burton, al., make ἁμαρτία the subject: ‘that sin might appear to be working death, ὅσο. (‘so that sin appears to have effected my death,’ ἄς. Dr. Burton, most ungrammatically): there is no objection to this on the ground of ἅμαρτ. being anarthrous, as even Bp. Mid- dleton himself reluctantly acknowledges ; — the objection lies in the context, as above), that (explains and runs parallel with the former ἵνα, as in 2 Cor. ix. 8, where he adds to the 2nd ἵνα, καθὼς ἔλεγον) by means of the commandment sin might become exceeding (above measure) sinful: i.e. that sin, which was before unknown as such, might, being vivified and brought into energy by (its opposition to) the com- mandment, be brought out as being (not merely ‘ skewn to be’) exceedingly sinful (sinful in an exaggerated degree— promi- nent in its true character as the opponent of God). 14.) On the change into the present tense here, see above in the remarks on the whole section. Hitherto has been historical: now the Apostle passes to the present time, keeping hold yet of the carnal ἐγώ of former days, whose remnants are still energizing in the renewed man. For (by way of explaining and setting in still clearer light the relative pesitions of sin and the law, and the state of inner conflict brought about by their working) we know (it is an acknowledged principle amongst us, see reff.) that the law is spiritual (sprung from God, who is a Spirit, and requiring of men spiritual purity. These meanings, which have been separately held by different Commentators, may, as Thol. and De W. observe, well be united): but I (see beginning of section) am carnal ([subject to the law of the flesh, and in bondage to it, see below] σάρκινος, stronger than σαρκικός ; carneus rather than carnalis, but it is doubtful whether the two endings were not used indiscriminately : see Tholuck), sold (into slavery, see reff.; but the similitude must not be exacted in all particulars, for it is only the fact of slavery, as far as its victim, the man, is concerned, which ‘is here prominent) under (to, and so as to be under the power of) sin. Tholuck (who differs from the view of this section advo- cated above, yet) adds here: “The ἐγώ appears here in its totality as sinful, while in vv. 16, 20 it is distinguished from sin. That Paul does not here bear in mind th:s distinction, may be justified by the maxim, ‘a potiori fit denominatio ;’ the ἐγώ is a slave, and has not his own will: as ver. 23 shews, the ἐγώ which is hostile to sin, the νόμος τοῦ νοός, is under coercion, and the man isa captive. So Arrian in Epict. ii. 22: ὅπου yap τὸ ἐγὼ καὶ τὸ ἐμόν, ἐκεῖ ἀνάγκη ῥέπειν τὸ ζῶον, εἰ ἐν σαρκί, ἐκεῖ τὸ κυριεῦον εἶναι, εἰ ἐν προαιρέσει, ἐκεῖνο (qu. ἐκεῖ ?) evar.” The latter clause of the verse is the very strongest asser- tion of man’s subjection to the slavery of sin in his carnal nature. 15.| For (a proof of this πεπράσθαι under sin, viz. not being able to do what I would, vv. 15—17) that which 1 perform (am in the habit of doing) I know not (act blindly, at the dictates of another: which is proper to a slave. oxorovua φησί, συναρπάζομαι, ἐπήρειαν ὑπυμένω, οὐκ vida πῶς ὑποσκελί- Couat, Chrys. The meaning, “1 approve not, introduced by Aug. and held by Erasm., Beza, Grot., Estius, Semler, al., is not sanctioned by usage,—see note on 1 Cor. viii. 3,— and would make the follow- ing clause almost a tautology): for (expla- nation of last assertion, shewing how such A ΄ A » x, A “ a aA ghere only. Οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω, τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ μισῶ, τοῦτο ποιῶ. ay Xen. Anab. ᾿ . : ΕἾ ay .: Ρ' Py Z ne 2 wee, 10 εἰ δὲ ὃ ov θέλω, τοῦτο ποιῶ, ὃ σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ OTL avedt isi iv 56 ἢ καλός. 11 νυνὶ δὲ ἰ οὐκ ἔτι ἐγὼ " κατεργάξομαι αὐτό, mn O17 below (p) καλός. νυνὶ VK € γ ργάζομ ,mno i= ch. Xi. 6. > \ ΄ lm Ε] ἂὰ ] 5 ΕῚ Ἀ ξ΄ 7 13 an \ ov > [47] x ver, 2 ἀλλὰ ἢ οἰκουσα “εν EOL ἀμαρτια. 5 οἰδα ‘yap OTL οὐκ l here 3ce. ch. viii. 9, 11. 1 Cor. iii. 16. Gen. iv. 16. xvi. 3. m us above (1) 1 Cor. vii. 12 13. 1 Tim. vi. 16 only. n Acts xix. 4 reff. Anab. vii. 3. 22. p here bis. ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. 5. Oe 2 ion , » κ , > AG OLKEL “εν EfLOL, τουτέστιν EV Τῇ GACKL μου. ayavov, Viti TO s ᾽ὔ me yap θέλειν ο παράκειταί μοι, τὸ δὲ " κατεργάζεσθαι ? τὸ i - > ἃ , “ ἃ , Ρ καλὸν οὔ. 19 οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ ὃ οὐ θέλω o here only Ὀἷβ τ. ‘Sir. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 16. Hom. Od. x. 65. Polyb. iy. 38. 7. iii. 57.8. Xen. 2 Cor. xiii. 7. Gal. vi. 9. 1 Thess, τ. 21 only. Amos v¥. 14. 15. om Ist τουτο DF goth Meth, [Orig-int, ] Pelag (copt om both): ins ABCKL[P]& rel vulg [syrr eth arm] Orig,[int, | Meth, Chr, (Bas, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Aug, | Ambrst]. αλλα &. 16. συνφημι DFR. 17. (adda, so BDF Lfe sil, Tischdf ].) for καλος, καλον εστιν F. for οἰκουσα, ενοικουσα BX [Meth,(in Phot-ms)] Ambrst (evot«es am Ambrst in follg ver). 18. ins το bef αγαθον F Meth, Cyr[-p, Thdrt-c, ]. αγαθον F { Euthal-ms Damase Orig-int Ambrst, }. for δε, yap, and for καλον, rec (for ov) ovx evpiokw, with DFKL[P] rel [vulg syrr goth (eth)] arm-mg Chr, Thdrt Jer Sedul : txt ABCR [47] copt arm Meth, Cyr[-p] gr-mss-mentd-by-Aug Augszpe- 19. ins rovto bef row ( ὁ vulg [Orig-int, | Jerarig- (adda, so BD!N.) for ov θελω, wow F vulg-sixt(with F-lat) Thdrt [Orig-int,(txt,)]: om G. blind service comes to pass) not what I desire, that do I (this θέλω is not the full determination of the will, the standing with the bow drawn and the arrow aimed; but rather the znelination of the will,— the taking up the bow and pointing at the mark, but without power to draw it :—we have θέλω in the sense of to wish, 1 Cor. vii. 7, 32; xiv. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 20), but what I hate (= οὐ θέλω, ver. 19: no dis- tinction in intensity between θέλω and μισῶ), that I do (no distinction here be- tween πράσσω ind ποιῶ, as apparently in John iii. 20, 21, where see note: for they are interchanged in vv. 19, 20). The Commentators cite several parallel pas- sages from profane writers: 6. g. Seneca, Hippol. 604, ‘ Vos testor omnes ccelites, hoc quod volo, me nolle;’—Epictetus, Enchiri- dion ii. 26, ἐπεὶ yap ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐ θέλει ἁμαρτάνειν, ἀλλὰ κατορθῶσαι, δῆλον ὅτι ὃ μὲν θέλει οὐ ποιεῖ, καὶ ὃ μὴ θέλει ποιεῖ: — the well-known lines of Ovid, Met. vii. 19, ‘ aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet : video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor :’ — Plautus, Trinummus iii. 2. 31, ‘Scibam ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam miser :’—e. 16.] But if (= ‘ now seeing that ;’ takes up the foregoing and draws an inference from it) what I wish not, that I do, I agree with (bear witness to) the law that it is good (viz. ‘in that the Jaw prohibits what J also dislike,—the law and 1 are as one in proscribing the ' thing,—the daw, and my wish, tend the same way’). 17.) Now however (‘quod autem quum ita sit,’ not of time, as Grot., ‘nune post legem datam,’—or Koppe, ‘ ex quo Christianus factus sum ”) it is no longer (not a chronological, but a logical sequence, ‘zt can no more be said, that ;’ see reff.) I that perform it (κατεργ. as recalling vv. 8—15), but sin that dwell- eth inme. Here the ἐγώ is not the com- plex responsible self, by which the evil deed is wrought, and which incurs the guilt of working it: but the self of the WILL in its higher sense, the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of ver. 22. The not bearing this in mind has led to error in interpretation and doc- trine: e.g. when it is supposed that the Christian is not responsible for his sins committed against his spiritual will and higher judgment ; whereas we are all re- sponsible for the ἔργα of the sin that dwelleth in us, and it is in this very sub- jection to and involution with the law of sin in our members, that the misery con- sists, which leads to the ery in ver. 24. 18.] An explanation of the οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία of the last verse, For I know (by experience, detailed in the next verse) that there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, (any) good (thing). I said, sin that dwelleth in me, because I feel sure, from experience, that im me (meaning by ‘ me’ not that higher spiritual self in which the Spirit of God dwells, but the lower carnal self: see on this important limitation the remarks at the beginning of the section) dwells no good thing. And what is my proof of this? How has expe- rience led me to this knowledge? For (the proof from experience) the wish (to do good) is present with me (7ap., not metaphorical, see reff., but, as προκεῖμαι in 16—25. κακόν, τοῦτο πράσσω. ποιῶ, ἱ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία. ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν ἢ τὸ ἢ καλόν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ § ΕΞ ᾿συνήδομαι γὰρ τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ τὸν > ζ " / \ “ὦ ΄ A " ἄνθρωπον, 35 " βλέπω δὲ “ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς * μέλεσίν iv. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 4. w = Matt. viii, 21. vv. 3,2 al. xch 29. rec aft θελω ins eyw (corrn for emphasis: with AKL[P JX rel syr copt goth Chdrt [Damasc Orig-int, | Augszpe : Jatt SyrLappy | eth arin [Meth ] Chr-mms, Cyr Ambr Ambrst Pelag Aug). BDR®. 21. om or: to παράκειται F. Homer, used commonly of me:ts served up to, lying before, any one); but to perform that which is good, is not (the absence οἵ εὑρίσκω in ABCR, and the variations of γινώσκω and ἔχω in one or two mss. and versions,—and besides, the somewhat un- usual termination of the sentence with οὐ, —are too strong presumptions of its being an interpolation, to allow of its retention) (present with me). 19.| And this οὐ παρακεῖσθαι of the doing good is shewn by my acts, in that 1 do not the good that 1 wish (to do), but the evil which 1 do not wish, that Z do, 20.] ‘lhe inference of ver. 17 restated, with the premiss of ver. 16 in the place of νυνὶ δέ :-—but its meaning is now clearer and deeper than then ; we know now that the ἐγώ which in the present verse does not the evil thing, is the better ἐγώ of the ἔσω ἄνθρω- mos,— whereas the ἐμοί in which sin dwells and rules, though included in the complex self, is the lower ἔγώ, ἡ σάρξ μους And so the way is now prepared for at once set- ting forth the conflict within us between these two. 21.] I find then (i.e. as appears from what has been detailed) the (this) law (presently to be defined as the law of sin in my members, and exemplitied in the following words: so τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου, ws ἔλεγεν, Acts xi. 16 :---τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπεν, Acts xx. 35 (De W.). This is the view of Calv., Beza, Grot., Estius, Wolf, Winer, Meyer (ed. J, but in subsequent editions he has altered his view more than once), De Wette, al. It cannot well be re- ferred to the Mosaic law, as, with various forced arrangements and constructions, Chrys., Theophyl., Theodoret, Tholuck, Olsh., Fritz., Kéllner ; the great objection being, that all these do violence to the con- text. Tholuck’s remark, that had νόμον meant as above, it would have been anar- throus, or τοῦτον τὸν νόμον, is sufficiently answered by the above examples: and the dative after εὑρίσκω, to which he also ob- ΠΡῸΣ ῬΩΜΑΊΟΥΣ. 20 εἰ δὲ ὃ : , Sa We ΄, \ ἱ οὐκ ἔτι ἐγὼ * κατεργάζομαι αὐτό, ἀλλὰ ἡ ™ οἰκοῦσα 9 Mage) ” \ , A = 21 4 εὑρίσκω nee Tov * ecm τῷ θέλοντι 55. ὃ ἐντὸς ἄνθρ., Plato Rep. ix. p. 589. . vi. 13 reff. 383 TOUTO q — Acts xix. 19. xxvii. 28. 1 Chron. xx. 2. ov θέλω [ἐγώ], ch. ii. 9 reff. 8 t here only tf. ὃ τὸ § κακὸν ἐπ αφ ον Ken, Mee iii. 11. 10. "ecw Herod. iii. 36. Eurip. Med. 136. u Eph. iii. 16. see 2 Cor. v — and constr., Heb. x. 25. or for conformity with eyw below 7), om BCDF bo (aAAa, 50 22. for θεου, κυριου 34: voos B. jects as inadmissible in any language, is justitied by Soph. Gd. Col. 966, οὐκ ἂν ἐξεύροις ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτίας ὄνειδος οὐδέν, -- and by Plato, Rep. iv. p. 421, ἕτερα .. τοῖς φύλαξιν εὑρήκαμεν, ‘alia invenimus nos- tris custodibus observanda,’ Ficin.) to me (for inyself) wishing to do good, that (consisting in this, that) evil is present with (see above, ver. 18) me. 22, 23.| Explanation of the conflict above alleged to exist. For I delight in (σύν not signifying participation with others, but as perhaps in συνλυπούμενος, Mark iii. 5, and in the phrase σύνοιδά μοι; denoting ‘apud animum meum.’ Thol. συνήδομαι is ἃ stronger expression than σύμφημι, Ver. 16) the law of God after the inner man (= νοῦς, ver. 25,—see retl.—and compare Peter’s 6 κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος, ref. 1 Pet. But not merely the mental and reasoning part of man:—for that surely does not dclight in the law of God: —it is absolutely necessary to presuppose the znfluence of the Holy Spirit, and to place the man in a state of grace before this assertion can be true. And it is sur- prising to find Commentators like Tholuck aud De Wette, while they acknowledge that συνήδομαι is stronger than σύμφημι, yet denying the gradual introduction ot the spiritual man in the description of this conflict. True, THE SPIkIT is not yet in- troduced, because purposely kept back until treated of as the great deliverer from this state of death; the man is as yet described as compounded of the outer and inner inan, of ἡ σάρξ and ὁ νοῦς, and the operations of the two are detailed as if unassisted,— even the term πνεῦμα for the human spirit being as yet avoided,—but all this is done, because the object is to set the conflict and misery, as existing even in the spiritual man, in the strongest light, so that the question in ver. 24 may lead the way to the real uses and blessed results of this conflict in ch. viii.); but I see (= ‘find ?—as if he were a spectator of that which is going on 384 y here only +. z Luke xxi. 24. 2 Cor. x.5. 2 Tim. iii. 6 only. 3 Kings viii. 46. (-ros, Luke iv. 18 τοῖς * μέλεσίν μου. i. 10 4]. Exod. vi. 6. 23. [for Ist μου, μοι F-gr. | τω οντι A. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. ΛΠ. 24,28 ᾽ f “ ΄ an , \ 9 μου ὃ ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῳ ἵνομῳ TOV νοῦς μου, Kal * aLy- / / 2 lal , a ~ ΄ , -“ wv ᾽ Ξ μαλωτίζοντά με [ἐν] τῷ νόμῳ ὃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῳ OVTL ἐν ζ “ 3 \ ” / 24 ὃ ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος" Tis με ΄ὔ » ’ -“ / , Oc / © ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος *tT00 θανάτου τούτου ; * ἃ χάρις only. -τεύειν, Eph. iv. 8 only. -σία, ib. and Rev. xiii. 10 bis only.) Ὁ Rev. iii. 17 only. Isa. xxxiii.1. (-pta, ch. iii. 16. -pecv, James iv. 9.) ν΄. ἀπό, Matt. vi. 13. ch. xv. 31 al. a genit., — ch vi. 6 reff. ς — and constr., Luke i. 74. 2 Cor. Ps. cxxxix. 1. d = ch. vi. 17 reff. αντιστρατ. κ. αἰχμαλ. (omg ue) Tw νομ. του νοῦς μου rec om 2nd εν, with (A)CL rel syrr [arm] Meth, Cwes, Chr, Cyr[-p, Danmrasc:] ins BDFK[P]& b!' ck mn ὁ 17 latt coptt goth Clem, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Orig-int, Ambrst. [47(sic). }] 25. rec for xapis Tw θεω, εὐχαριστω Tw θεω (see notes). with AKLN' rel syrr goth Orig, Chr (Ec Thl: ἡ χαρις του θεου 1) vulg [ Orig-int, Ambrst Jer, |, 7 xapis Tov κυριου F: txt B 213 sah (eth) Meth, Orig,, and x. δε tw θ. C*(C! uncert) δὲ. τουτὶ 10-7. 31. 73. within) a different law (differing in kind and aim, not = ἄλλος merely) in my members (= ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ver. 18), warring against (/in continual dissension and conflict with] ἀντιστρ. is not to be joined with βλέπω so as to = ἀντιστρατεύ- εσθαι, though that would be an allowable construction, see Acts viii. 23; 1 Cor. viii. 10,—but βλέπω---μου forms an indepen- dent sentence antithetic to συνήδομαι --- ἄνθρωπον) the law of my mind (the con- sent viz., to the law of God, which my mind yields; not = the law of God, any more than the different law in my mem- bers = the law of sin,—but both meaning the standard or rule set up, which inclina- tion follows :—the one in the νοῦς, in har- mony with the law of God,—the other in the μέλη or σάρξ, subservient, and causing subservience, to the principle or law of sin), and bringing me (the whole complex self—the ‘ me’ of personality and action) into captivity with (ἐν, not exactly ‘ by means of, but pointing out the department in which, the investiture with which, the taking captive has place. Nor would the simple dative be ‘by means of,’ as Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl.,—but merely ‘to? the dat. commodi aft. aiyuaad.) the law of sin (the sinful principle, of resistance to God’s law, ἡ ἁμαρτία as awakened and set energizing, ver. 9, by that law) which is in my members. Commentators have much disputed whether the ἕτερος νόμος, and the νόμος τῆς auapt., both ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου, are different, or the same. The former view is held by Calv., Beza, Kdllner, Riickert, De W.: the latter by Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Tholuck. It ap- pears to me (see above) that the identity cuunot be maintained without introducing great confusion into the sentence. 24.| The division of the man against him- self,—his inward conflict, and miserable stale of captivity to sin in the flesh, while with the mind he loves and serves the law of God. From this wretched condition, which is a very death in life, who shall deliver him? σώματος cannot well be figurative, ‘ untversitas vitiorum,’ or ‘ mor- tifera peccati massa,’ but must, on account ot the part which 7 odpé and τὰ μέλη have hitherto borne, be literal. Then how is τούτου to be taken? Some (Syr., Erasm., Calv., Beza, Olsh., Winer) join it with σώματος, and (not Winer) justify the construction asa Hebraism: but Winer has refuted the notion (edn. 6, § 34. 3. b) of a Hebraism, and the arrangement has no Greek example. It can only be joined with θανάτου ;—and that most fitly, as the state which he has been describing is referred to by τοῦ θανάτου τούτου. .Then the body of this death will mean, ‘ the body whose subjection to the law of sin brings about this state of misery,’ compare σῶμα τῆς auaptias, ch. vi. 6. From this body, as the instrument whereby he is led captive to the law of sin and death, he cries out for deliverance: i.e to be set free, as ch: viii. 2, from the law of sin and death. Some Commentators, misled by the notion of a Hendiadys (σώματος τοῦ 0. = θνητοῦ g#uatos), a most fruitful source of error in exegesis, have imagined that the verse im- plies a wish to be delivered from the body (by death), and expresses a weariness of life. The cry is uttered, as De Wette well observes, in full consciousness of the de- liverance which Christ has effected, and as leading to the expression of thanks which follows. And so, and no otherwise, is if to be taken. 25.} The rec. εὐ- χαριστῶ has but slender authority, and in the great variety of readings, it is not easy to determine. 7 χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ is evidently a correction to answer to tis above; so that our choice lies be- tween χάρις τῷ θ. and χάρις δὲ τῷ θ. The sentence is (not, of course, construc- tionally, as the var. readg. ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ, but logically) an answer to the pre- ceding question: Thanks to God (who hath accomplished this) by means of Jesus Christ our Lord. This exclamation and thanksgiving more than all convince me, VGiTF. I, 2. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 385 al - YY. nr a lal / ΄ lal 5 τῷ θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοϑ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. * ἄρα " οὖν ech.v. 18 ref. f = ver. 23. \ \ A ἃ ‘A. / / lal lal \ \ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν ‘vol ὃ δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ, TH SE σαρκὶ s6,2 Thess. ͵ ς ΄ Η os » ove mes νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας. VIII. 1 οὐδὲν ἄρα viv ὃἣ κατάκριμα ® iret το A an? Yl OR , ἢ , « παν, 16,18 τοῖς ἐν χριστῷ Ιησοῦ" 3, ὁ γὰρ νόμος Tov! πνεύματος τῆς | only. i (ver. 10.) Rev. xi. 11. Ezek. xxxvii.5. 80. 93 copt arm Cyr[-p, ]. eyw bef avros D}(and lat) vulg [spec Orig-int, Ambrst ]. om wey FR? latt [Orig-int, | lat-ff Cuap. VIII. 1. om νυν D'[-gr 47-marg] Syr eth arm Cyr[-p,] (Jer,) Victorin, Preedest,. rec at end ins uy κατα σαρκα περιίπατουσιν (so far, with AD? vulg [spec F-lat] Syr goth arm Bas, Chr, lat-ff) αλλα κατα πνευμα (supplied from ver 4, from a misunderstanding of the argument: see notes), with D?KL[P]&* rel [syr] Thart ΤῊ] (ἔς : om BCD! ΕἸ -gr(a space is left) δὲ! [47-txt] coptt 2th Orig-schol Ath, Dial Cyr[-p, Orig-int, ] Aug,. that Paul speaks of none other than him- self, and carries out as far as possible the misery of the conflict with sin in his mem- bers, on purpose to bring in the glorious de- liverance which follows. | Compare 1 Cor. xv. 56, 57, where a very similar thanks- giving occurs. ἄρα οὖν x.7.r.] These words are most important to the under- standing of the whole passage. We must bear in mind that it had begun with the question, Is THE LAW sIN? The Apostle has proved that it is ΝΟΥ, but is HOLY. He has shewn the relation that it holds to. sin, viz. that of vivifying it by means of man’s natural aversion to the command- ment. He has further shewn, that in him- self, even as delivered by Christ Jesus, a conflict between the law and sin is ever going on: the misery of which weuld be death itself, were not a glorious deliverance - effected. He now sums up his vindication of the law as holy; and at the same time, sums up the other side of the evidence adduced in the passage, from which it appears that the flesh is still, even in the spiritual man, subject( essentially, not prac- tically and energetically) to the law of sin, —which subjection, in its nature and con- sequences, is so nobly treated in ch. viii. So then (as appears from the foregoing), I myself (1, who have said all this against and in disparagement of the law; I, who write of justification by faith without the deeds of the law: not ‘JZ alone,’ without Christ, as opposed to the foregoing,—as De Wette, Meyer: nor, ‘ego idem,’ [, one and the same person, as Beza, Erasm., Calv., Olsh.: nor ‘tlle ego,’ as Grot., Thol. See, for the meaning given above, ch. viii. 26 (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα); ix. 3; xv. 14; 2 Cor. xii. 13, in all which places (see on ch. xv. 14) it has the same force) with my mind (indeed) (6 νοῦς = 6 ἔσω ἄνθρ. as in ver. 23) serve the law of God (cf. συνήδομαι, ver. 22), but with my flesh (the ἐγώ of ver. 18; and the σάρξ through- Vou. Ii. out of ch. viii.) the law of sin: It re- mains to be seen how this latter subjection, which in the natural man earries all with it, is neutralized, and issues only in the death of the body on account of sin, ia those who do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Cuap. VIII. 1—39.] In the case of those whe are in Christ Jesus, this divided state ends im the glo- rious triumph of the Spirit over the flesh: and that (vv. 1—17), though incompletely, not inconsiderably, even here in this state, —and (vv. 18—30) completely and glo- riously hereafter. And (vv. 31—39) the Christian has no reason to fear,.but all reason to hope ; for nothing ean sever him Srom God’s love in Christ. 1—17.] Although the flesh is still subject to the law of sin, the Christian, serving not the flesh, but walking aecording to the Spirit, shall not come into eondemnation, but to glory with Christ. 1.) There is there- fore (an inference from ch. vii. 25, because with their mind, and that mind dwelt in and led by the Spirit of Christ, they serve, delight in, the law 6) God) now (this viv is emphatic, and follows upon the question and answer of vil. 24, 28, —rebus sie stantibus,—now that a de- liverance has been effected from the body of this death, by Christ. This is eertain from the γάρ which follows, setting forth the fact of the deliverance) no eondemna- tion (retf.; = the penal consequence of sin original and actual) to those (who are) in Christ Jesus. The expression ἐν xp “Inc. refers particularly to the last place where God’s gift of life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord was spoken of, ch. vi. 23,—and generally to all that was said in that ehap- ter of our incorporation into and union with Him. The words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα, ‘ walking as they do not according to the flesh but aecording to the Spirit, are probably a gloss introduced from ver. 4, right enough : Cec 986 l see Acts xiv. Sreff. constr τῆς ἁμαρτίας Kal τοῦ θανάτου. nom., see Neb. viii. 1. acc., 2 Cor. xii. 17. m = Heb. ii.18. n = 2 Cor. xiii. ὃ. 2. [om ev xp. ino. K Chr, Tert,.] ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. Viti i ΄- » “a > “-“- k > ,ὔ / -ς > ¥ -“ , woh. vi. 18 ret. | ζωῆς ἐν χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὃ ἠλευθέρωσέν ὃ με ἀπὸ TOU νόμου 3 \ ‘ l 10U ral TO Yap αἀουνατον TOU / m > φ n > / \ “ ΄ « θ Ἁ \ « lal νόμου, ἢ ἐν ᾧ " ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός, ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ * oe BEN spec Syr Chr.(but mss vary) [‘Tert,]; ἡμας copt eth Dial, Meth,: με ACDKL[P] rel vulg syr sah goth φῦ [arm (but some mss om) Clem, Didaiie Ath, ] Chr, Thdrt [Cyr,-p Damase Orig-int,] Tert, Ambr Jer. in sense (see there), but out of place here, because this moral element of ‘those in Christ’ is not yet brought in: the present assertion is general, and is made good in detail by and by. See digest. 2. | For (a reason why there is no condemna- tion) the law (norma, method = influence, as in ἕτερον τόμον, ch. vii. 23,—used here erhaps for sharper contrast to the νόμος auapt. below) of the Spirit of life (the Lord and Giver of life—lite used in an incipient higher sense than ἔζων in ch. vii. 9,—see below) freed me (aor., referring to the time of his conversion. There is no stronger proof to my mind of the identity of the speaker in the first person through- out with the Apostle himself, than this extension of that form of speaking into this chapter: nothing more clearly shews, that there he was describing a really existing state within himself, but insulating, and as it were exaggerating it (as so often), to bring out more clearly the glorious de- liverance to follow. If σε be read, the ad- dress is a general one to the reader, leading on to the ἡμῖν below: and the foregoing argument does not apply) in Jesus Christ (1 follow the more regular grammatical arrangement in taking ἐν yp. "Inc. with the verb. Thus also Thol. and De Wette. It may be taken (notwithstanding the absence of the art., at which indeed only tiros will stumble) with ζωῆς, as Luther, which seems to suit ch. vi. 23,—or with Tov mv.T. ¢., as Piscator and Flatt,—or with ὁ vou. τ. π. τ. ©, as Calv.) from the law of sin (vii. 25) and death (death again here bears a higher meaning than in ch. vii. We are now on higher ground :— . κατάκριμα having been mentioned, which is the punishment of sin, death now in- volves that, and is not only temporal misery, but eternal ruin also. This ‘law of the Spirit of life’ having freed him from the law of sin and death, so that he serves another master, all claim of sin on him is at an end—he is acquitted, and there is no condemnation for him). 9.) For (explanation of ver. 2, shewing the method of this liberation) that which Was not in the power of the law (the construction is a nominativus pendens, as in ref. Heb., in apposition with the follow- ing sentence, 6 θεὸς k.7.A.: so Riickert, Meyer, Fritz., De W., Tholuck: Winer, ὃ 32. 7, makes it an acc. governed by ἐποίησεν understood (stating however in edn. 6, the nom. pendens as an alternative; see also ὃ 63. I. 2. d): Olsh. al., make it an acc. absol. or supply kara: Camerarius and Beza, διά ;—-but the above seems the simplest. τὸ ἀδύνατ. τοῦ νόμου may mean either, ‘that part of the law which was impossible,’ —‘could not be obeyed,’ — as τὸ γνωστὸν Tov θεοῦ, ch. i. 19;—or, ‘the inability of the law’ = ἡ ἀδυναμία τ. ν., as TO χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ch. ii. 4;— or, ‘that which was unable to be done by the law.’ Of these, the first is out of the question, because νόμος must be the sub- ject of ἐν ᾧ ἦσθ. x.7.A.:—the second would give the first clause the meaning, ‘that wherein the inability of the law shewed itself,’ viz. its powerlessness διὰ τ. σαρκός. The third yields by far the best meaning: see below on διὰ τ. σ.) in that (this clause gives a reason and explanation of the adv- vatov, see however the note on ref. Heb.) it was weak (the Apostle keeps in mind his défence of the holiness of the law undertaken in ch. vii., and as Chrys. ob- serves, δοκεῖ μὲν διαβάλλειν τὸν νόμον, εἰ δέ τις ἀκριβῶς προΞξέχοι, καὶ σφόδρα αὐτὸν ἐπαινεῖ. . . οὐδὲ γὰρ εἶπε τὸ πονηρὸν τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀδύνατον καὶ πάλιν ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει, οὐκ, ἐν ᾧ ἐκακούργει, ἐν ᾧ ἐπεβούλευε. Hom. xiv. p. 563) through the flesh (i.e. in having to act through the flesh: not, ‘on account of the flesh,’ i.e of the hostility, or weakness of the flesh, which would be διὰ τὴν σάρκα. The flesh was the medium through which tke law, — being a νόμος ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης, Heb. vii. 16,—wrought, and of ἐν σαρκί the objects on which. So the gen. here is similar to that in 2 Cor. ii. 4, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν διὰ πολ- λῶν δακρύων, and 1 Pet. v. 12, δ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, indicating the state in or medium through which, the action is carried on), —God (did) sending His own Son (the stress is on ἑαυτοῦ, and the word is preg- nant with meaning :—His own, and there- fore like Himself, holy and sinless. This implication should be borne in mind, as the suppressed antithesis to auapr., three times repeated afterwards. Another anti- thesis may be implied—é€autov, and there- fore spiritual, not acting merely through ABCDF KL[P]x abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] 3, 4. ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. 987 εχ , > ont ΄ Ρ Ν p e / \ q \ rand υἱὸν πέμψας ἐν ° ὁμοιώματι Ρ σαρκὸς ἢ ἁμαρτίας καὶ 4 περὶ och. 1. 38 rt \ ς / a“ \ ἁμαρτίας " κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν TH σαρκί, * ἵνα τὸ ἔξοχ. ο, the flesh, though in its likeness, but bring- ing a higher spiritual life into the man- hood) in the likeness of the flesh of sin (the flesh whose attribute and character was SIN. The gen. is not = ἁμαρτωλοῦ, but implies far more—[not merely the con- tamination by, but] the belonging to and being possessed by. De Wette observes, ‘The words ἐν ὁμοιώμ. capk. au. appear almost to border on Docetism; but in reality contain a perfectly true and con- sistent sentiment. σὰρξ auapt. is flesh (human nature, John i. 14; 1 John iv. 2; Heb. ii. 14) possessed with sin: tne Apostle could not then have said ἐν σαρκὶ au. without making Christ partaker of sin: nor could he have said merely ἐν σαρκί, for then the bond between the Manhood of Jesus, and sin, would have been wanting: he says then, ἐν ὁμοιώμ. cap. au.,—mean- ing by that, He had a nature like sinful human nature, but had not Himself a sin- Jul nature,—compare Heb. iv. 15: ov yap ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συν- παθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, πεπειρασ- μένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. The likeness must be referred not only to σάρξ, but also to the epithet τῆς ἅμ. :---ἰῦ did not however consist in this, that He took our sins (literally) on Himself, and became Himself sinful (as Reiche), which would not amount to like- ness of nature,—but in this, that He was able to be tempted, i.e. subjected to sen- suous incitements, 6. g. of pain, which in ether men break out into sin, but in Him did not.’ See Phil. ii. 7, and note. σάρξ is not = σῶμα, but as in John i. 14, the material, of which man is in the body compounded),—and on account of sin (to be joined with πέμψας, not as Chrys. al. Vulg., with κατέκρινεν : least of all as Luther, “und verdammete die Stinde in Fleisch durch Siinde.” The ‘for, or ‘on account of, sin, is at present indefinite, and not to be restricted to Christ’s death as a sin-offering, which is not just now the subject. ‘On account of sin’ then, = to put away sin, as reff. Heb.), condemned sin in the flesh (not ‘the sin which was in the flesh,’ which would probably (not certainly) have been τὴν ἐν τ. σ., and which is against the context, in which au. is throughout an absolute principle. κατέκρινεν is allusive to κατάκριμα ver. 1. Hence it has been taken to mean that God con- demned, punished, sin in the flesh by the death of Christ: so Orig., Erasm., Calv., p constr., Phil. iii. 21 bis. 18. Num. viii. 8. Lev. v. 11. rch. ii. 1 reff, Melancthon, Calov., Olsh., al. But that can hardly be the meaning here, for several reasons. 1. The Apostle is not speaking of the removal of the guz/t, but of the practice of sin, and of the real fulfilment of the law in those who are in Christ. It is this which even in ver. 1 is before him, grounding as he does the οὐδὲν κατάκριμα on the dov- λεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ -- on the new and sanctify- ing power of the Spirit by Christ, in spite of the continued subjection of the flesh to the law of sin. 2. The context shews that the weakness of the law was, its having no sanctifying power ;—it could arouse sin, but it could not condemn and cast it out. This indeed is the burden of ch. vii. The absence of justifying power in the law has already been dealt with. 3. The following verse clearly makes the fulfilling the δι- καίωμα of the law no matter of mere im- putation, but of περιπατεῖν κατὰ πνεῦμα. We must then look for the meaning of κατακρίνειν in the effects and accompani- ments of condemnation, —victory over, and casting out of sin. See, for example, John xii. 31, where κρίσις τοῦ κόσμου τούτου 18 explained by 6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω, and ib. xvi. 11. As early as Irenzus (Har. ili. 20. 2, p. 214) this was seen to be the sense: ‘ut con- demnaret peccatum, et jam quasi condem- natum projiceret illud extra carnem :’—so Chrys., ἐνίκησεν αὐτήν, τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἐξέλυσε,---(Εσατῃ. 2, πῶς ἐξῆρε; κατακρίνας αὐτὴν---καὶ δείξας ἁλοῦσαν. πῶς οὖν ἑάλω καὶ ἥττηται; ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ. προ-- ιέναι γὰρ βουληθεῖσα κ. μὴ ἰσχύσασα ἑάλω kK. ἥττηται,---ἀῦτκὐΣ Theophyl. (τὴν σάρκα) ἡγίασε Kk. ἐστεφάνωσε, κατακρίνας τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ προςληφθείσῃ καὶ δείξας ὅτι οὐ φύσει ἁμαρτωλὸς ἡ σάρξ. And so, in modern times, Reza, Vitringa, Bengel, the Schmidts, Rosenm., Meyer, De Wette, Tholuck, Locke, Stuart, al., and mainly Grot., Reiche, and Fritz., who however render it ‘interfecit’ or ‘sup- plicio affecit,’ and understand the occa- sion to have been the Death of Christ,— though the condemnation of sin is owing to His sinlessness, nut to His sacrifice. I have dwelt at length on this question, as being very important to the right apprehension of the whole chapter, in this part of which not the justification, but the sanctification, of Christians is the leading subject. It is a strong con- firmation of the above view, that God’s condemnation of sin in the flesh by Christ is stated in ver. 3 as the ground of 388 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOT®. ΙΗ ; r 5 , a ΄ ς Xr An 5 FQ, wn Ά t Q r= chi. ικαίωμα TOD νόμου ὃ πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ * κατὰ Pe oe “ ‘ a ¢ ἈΝ s=ch.xili8al. t σάρκα " περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ ‘kata πνεῦμα. ὃ οἱ γὰρ 68}. \ a ‘ nw e » ae) gem, ἡ κατὰ ἱ σάρκα ὄντες " τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς δ᾽ φρονοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ "o28 Luke tata ' πνεῦμα τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. ὃ τὸ γὰρ * φρόνημα ii. 49. ch. ii. τῷ Μ' . yap ρΟνΉΜ 14. Thue a \ ΄ \ \ x ΄ a ΄, \ nisi, τῆς σαρκὸς θάνατος, τὸ δὲ * φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος ζωὴ = att. . , ΄ , x , A Ἀ yy 5 za Mk. ch. καὶ εἰρήνη. 7 * διότι τὸ * φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς * ἔχθρα εἰς Phil. iii. 19. Se ES. , κα GE OF , 5 RACAL ON Βα αι. 19. Θεόν" τῷ yap νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ " ὑποτάσσεται, οὐδὲ Yap xheresee δύναται" 8 οἱ δὲ ὁ ἐν “ σαρκὶ ὄντες θεῷ ἃ ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται ver. 27 } Pp ; rn p . enly+. 2 Macc. vii. 21. xiii. 9 only. a Luke xxiii. 12. Gal. v.20. Eph. ii. 15, 16. y — ch. ii. 10 reff. James iv. 4 only. z= ch. 1. 21. ν΄. εἰς, here only. 1 Cor. xv. 9. Gen. iii. 15. b Luke ii. 51 al. Dan. vi. 13 Theod. 1 Chron. xxix. 24. ς ch. ii. 28 reff. d Acts vi. 5 reff. ch. xv. 1, ἄς. 1 Cor. vii. 32, ἄς. 1 Thess. iv.1. 2Tim.ii.4. Prov, xii. 21. ἡ. for διοτι, οτι F. for δυναται, ουναται &?. 8. ins τω bef θεω D. ‘ver, 2) my being freed from the law of sin and death : because, viz. Christ’s victory over sin is mine, by my union with Him and participation in His Spirit. ἐν τῇ σαρκί is not ‘in His flesh,’ or ‘by means of His flesh, as Orig., Syr.(Peschito), Reza, Grot., Reiche, Olsh., al., but ‘in the flesh, which Christ and ourselves have in common), 4. in order that (the pur- pose of God’s condemning sin in the flesh) the righteous demand (or, requirement) of the law (= all its requirements (statutes), but here combined in one for the sake of more distinct objectivity. The variations in interpretation of ver. 3 have given rise to corresponding ones here. But here the matter has been more complicated still by the Vulg. rendering δικαίωμα, ‘justificatio,’ which has thrown the weight of the Romanist interpreters on the side of ‘ jus- titia imputata.’ The usage of the word itself would preclude any such reference here, besedes the considerations urged in the note above) might be fulfilled in us (find its full accomplishment ;—not mere- ly = ‘be performed by us, —for the Apos- tle has a much deeper meaning, viz. that the aim of God in giving the Law might be accomplished in us, in our sanctifica- tion, which is the ultimate end of our redemption, Eph. ii. 10; Col. i. 22. The passive is used, to shew that the work is not ours, but that of God by His grace, Olsh., Thol., De Wette) who walk (not ‘walking as we do,’ which would be anarthrous, — buta description of αὐ those of whom the above is true) not after the flesh but after the Spirit (who, notwithstanding that we are bound up with a σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, do not walk in our daily life according to, or led by, the νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὃ ἐν τοῖς μέλε- σιν ἡμῶν, but according to and led by the νόμος Tov πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς, in Christ Jesus—members of Him, and participating in that victory over sin which He obtained, by which the power of sin in our flesh is broken). 5. | For (explanation of the last) those who live according to the flesh (ὄντες not quite = περιπατοῦντες, but nearly :—the latter is the evidence of the former, and a consequence of it: οἱ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες = of σάρκινοι) mind (‘ think of, ‘care for, and strive after,’ see reff.) the things belonging to the flesh (its objects of desire): but those (who live) according tothe Spirit (= of πνευματικοί, see above), (mind) the things belonging to the Spirit (the higher aims and objects of desire of the spiritual life). 6. | For (the spiritual man cannot seek the things of the flesh, because) the mind (thoughts, cares, and aims as above) of the fiesh is (ends in—the copula (=), as when it joins the two signs of an algebraic operation;—‘ amounts to, being worked out’) death (not merely physical, nor mere unhappiness, as sometimes in ch, vii., but as in ver. 2, in the largest sense, extending to eternity); but the mind (thoughts, cares, and aims) of the Spirit, is (see above) life and peace (in the largest sense, as above). In this argument there is a suppressed premiss, to be supplied from ver. 2; viz. ‘The Spirit is the Spirit of life. Hence it follows that the spiri- tual man cannot mind the things of the flesh, because such mind is death. The addition καὶ εἰρήνη seems to be made to enhance the unlikelihood of such a minding,—the peace of the Spirit being a blessed contrast to the tumult of the flesh- ly lusts, even in this life. 7.) Be- cause (reason why the mind of the flesh is death) the mind of the flesh is enmity (contrast to εἰρήνη above) against God (it being assumed that God is the source of ζωή, and that ἔχθρα against Him is the absence of all true peace): for it does not submit itself (better [than the passive of the E. V.}) to the law of God,— for neither can it (this was proved in ch. vii.) : 8.] but (takes up the other and inferential member of the proposi- tion, answering to a suppressed μέν pre- ceding,—7d μὲν φρόνημα k.7.A. [bringing in a further consequence: if the mind of ABCDF KL[P]x abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] 5271. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 389 e r \ ᾽ 3 \ \ , " ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ " ἐν “ σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ " ἐν πνεύματι, f εἴπερ « - Jobnw. : 3. Eph. vi. πνεῦμα θεοῦ 8 οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. “ed δέ τις πνεῦμα χριστοῦ 18. οἱ. 1.8. i i μ XP see Rey. i. 10 z > \ \ Toma 10 ef δὲ χριστὸς ἐν f ch. iii. 30. ver. 17. h » i ” ee ’ ” 5 n OUK EVEL, ου.ὃς οὐκ EOTLY AUTOD. Clin \ \ a . AS) ue , \ \ a \ J ade ὑμῖν, TO μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν, TO δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ 190. viii. 5. ὃ \ ὃ ΠΝ 1] ΠΝ \ a CED) 5 ἢ \ 2 Cor. v. 3 ta δικαιοσύνην. |! εἰ δὲ TO πνεῦμα τοῦ * ἐγείραντος [τὸν] τ. Γ΄ 2 Thess. 3 a k 2 Η a or > res | rt ON ς k 2 7 Ἢ Ee 1. 6. 1 Pee 5 . 3 only. Ἰησοῦν * ἐκ νεκρῶν ὅ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὁ " ἐγείρας χριστὸν * ἐκ ὃν δ only, > a Τὰ \ \ \ f A ἡ νεκρῶν | ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ ™ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, διὰ τὸ κ Μαῖι. xvi. 42. 1 Cor. il Cor. vii. 40. Jude 19. k 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff. l ch. iv. 17 reff. Vil. 9. m ch. vi. 12 reff. 9. (adda; so BD' [ Meth, J.) 10. om εἰ de xp. ev vy. F. aft σωμα ins εστιν F. (δια αμ.. so ABCD3F 16 sil, Tischdf (δὲ Treg) ] ἃ g m.) for (wn, ζὴ F vulg(not am fuld harl!) arm. 11. ins τὸν bef inc. ABN! ο [47]: om CDFKL[P JN? rel (Clem,) | Meth, Euthal- ms | Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt, ΤῊ] He. rec ins τὸν bef χριστον, with K Li P j&3 rel Hipp, [Ps-Ath, Sevrn,] Thdrt Thl @c: om AB(C)D!3FR! [ Valent, Meth, Epiph Bas, Dial-trin, (and, adding mo., Ath, Did, Cyr-p Damasc)].—for χριστον, xp. ino. A(att vexp.) D! Ni(aft vexp. [so Cyr,-p]) [Ath, Did, Cyrg-p Damase]}: imo. xp. C(aft vexp.) vulg copt eth[-rom arm-use Ath, Did, Cyr,-p Orig-int, Aug, |: τὸν ησουν lect-13, tov κυριον 114-5, τ. κυρ. nu. ino. xp. Syr [Orthod,]: txt BD?FKL/P] rel syr sah {zth-pl arm-zoh Vaient, &c(as above) Orig-int, Ambrst] Iren-int, Tert, Hil,. om και AX 39. 47 [arm-edd Orig, Meth, Epiph, ]. the flesh cannot be subject to God’s law, then they who are in the flesh, and are led by that mind, cannot please God}. Calv., Beza, al. render it ‘therefore, and so E. V., “50 then,’ erroneously) they who are in the flesh (as their element of life and thought: nearly = κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες above, which however denotes the rule which they follow. In 2 Cor. x. 3, the two are distinguished: ἐν σαρκὶ yap περιπατοῦν- τες οὐ κατὰ σάρκα στρατευόμεθα) Can- not please God. Melancthon remarks (Thol.),—* Hic locus maxime refutat Pela- gianos et omnes qui imaginantur homines sine Spiritu Sancto legi obedire.’ 9. | But (oppos. to of κατ. odp. dvtTes) ye are not in the flesh (see above), but in the Spirit, if so be that (‘provided that;’ not ‘since, as Chrys., Olsh., al., which would be ἐπείπερ: Chrys. tries to prove εἴπερ = ἐπείπερ here by adducing ref. 2 Thess., where, however, as here, the meaning is, ‘if so be that, ‘if at least. That this is the meaning here is evident by the exception which immediately follows). But (this must be rightly understood: for) if any man has not ([not ‘have not,’ as E. V.; the case is put as an existent one | οὐκ, and not μή, because it belongs to the verb and not to εἰ. De W. See Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 2. d) the Spirit of Christ (=7v. θεοῦ above. Obs. here that πν. θεοῦ, mv. χριστοῦ, and χριστός, are all used of the Holy Spirit indwelling in the Christian), he is not His (belongs not to Him, in the higher and blessed sense of being united to Him as a member of Him). 10.] Now ({in slight | contrast to the last verse [he brings out one point, elz δια του EVOLKOVYTOS αὐτου TYEU- which might seem to be an exception to the blessed consequences of the life-giving power of Christ indwelling in us]) if Christ is in you (= mv. θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὕμ., see 2 Cor. iii. 17), the (your) bedy indeed is dead on account of sin (still remains dead, see 2 Cor. iv. 11—14, under the power of death physical (and eternal ?) because of sin which it, per se, stands in, and serves), but the (your) spirit (τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει, ὡς mvevvaTiKhy ἤδη yeyevn- μένην. Schol.. ap. Matthei (Thol.): or rather perhaps he [now] uses πγεῦμα, regarding our spirits as possessed and penetrated by God’s Spirit) is life (this would hardly be said if only our human spirits were meant, but the description would be in the adjectival form) on ‘ac- count of righteousness (not here the imputed righteousness of justification, which is not now under treatment, but the implanted righteousness of the sanett- fication of the Spirit. This appears not only from the context, but also from the διὰ ἁμαρτίαν, which answers to it). 11.] But (δέ takes up and continues the supposition in the former verse, witk which in fact this is nearly identical, but with the important additional particular (whence the contrast) τοῦ ἐγείραντ. K.7.A.) if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead, dwells in you (which Spirit is therefore powerful over death, and besides renders you partakers of Christ's Resurrection), He who raised Christ from the dead (the personal name, JEsus, reminds more of the historic fact of the resurreetion of the one Person, Jesus: the official and mystical name, 390 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. VIII. n2Cor. vi.16. ἢ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ἐν ὑμῖν. 13 ο ἄρα " οὖν, ἀδελφοί, age Col. iii. 15. pa 3 : Ν zTim-ia Ρ ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ « τοῦ "κατὰ " σάρκα ζῆν, εὐ ἀ τ a Mae ᾿ 4 ot weer, 19 εἰ γὰρ 'xaTa'odpKa ζῆτε, ὃ μέλλετε ἀποθνήσκειν" εἰ δὲ min ΟἹ p ch. i. 14 reff. , VA ME “ 43 f u fa “ νὰ θ » 4 pe σσ, σπινευματι τας Tpa ELS TOV σώματος aVaTOUTE, ησέεσῦσε. Σ. 13 rch. i. 3 reff. t = Acts xix. 18 reff. v = Heb. x. 38. ματος (see notes), with ACN[P? rel mss-in-]Dial-trin (Dial iii. 20, Athanas. Opp. vol iv. p 452 [1234, ed. Migne}. The Maced. has previously said οὕτως ob γέγραπται Διὰ rov . . ἀλλὰ Διὰ τό... and adds ἐὰν οὖν που ἕν ἢ δεύτερον ἀντίγραφον εὑρεθῇ ἐσφαλ- μένον παρ᾽ ὑμῖν... . to which the Orthodox replies, ἔχομεν δεῖξαι ὅτι ἐν ὅλοις ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις οὕτω γέγραπται' ἐπεὶ δὲ νομίζεις τοῦτο ἀντιλεγόμενον εἶναι, πληροφορήθητι καὶ ἐξ ἄλλης γραφικῆς ἀποδείξεως. Maced. εἰπέ, τοῦτο γὰρ ἀντιλέγεται) syr copt eth [sah-woide arm] Clem, Hipp, Cyr-jer, Ath, Did,[int, Meth,(and ms,)] Bas, Epiph, Chr, Cyr[-p Damasc] Mac, Ambr Augsepe Vig: txt BDFKL[P!] bef g h kl nol7 [47] latt Syr sah Orig,{int. Euthal-ms} Meth, Chr, Thdrt Sevrn, Iren-int, Tert, Hil, Ambrst Jer Ambrajic Aug, Pelag Sedul Fulg. 13. for του σωματος, τὴς capkos DF latt [Ephr,] Iren-int Orig,[int,] Did{-int, ] Tert, Cypr, Ambrst Ambr Jer Aug Pelag Sedul Bede: txt ABCKL[P)JX rel [syrr s = Acts xxi. 27. xxviii. 6. u ch. vii. 4 reff, xii. 9. copt zth] sah Orig, Chr, Thdrt [Did, Damasc]. Curist, of the body of which He is the Head and we the members,—all raised with Him by the one Spirit dwelling in all) shall quicken (not merely ἐγερεῖ, be- cause it is not merely the resurrection of the body which is in the Apostle’s view, — see below) even your mortal bodies (the higher phase of the ζωοποιεῖν takes place in the spirit of man: and even of that which takes place in the body, there are two branches—one, the quickening it from being a tool of unrighteousness unto death (eternal), —the other, the quickening it out of death (physical) to be a new and glori- fied body. And the καί joined with θνητά, here, signifies that the working of the πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν shall not stop at the urely spiritual resurrection, nor at that of the body from dead works to serve the living God, but shall extend even to the building up the spiritual body in the future new and glorious life), on account of His Spirit which dwells in you. Here the reading is much disputed, whether it be the acc. or gen.: see var. readd. The gen. can only mean, ‘by means of,’ ‘through,’ His Spirit, &c.: this the ace. may include, (it not being specified for what reason it is on the Spirit’s account, and leaving it open to be His presence, or His agency,) but must be rendered ‘ on account of,’ or ‘because of,’ His Spirit, ἄς. Thus both may imply that the Holy Spirit is the agent in the quickening; but the gen. cannot bear the other meaning, that God will quicken, &c. because of His Spirit, ἄς. Hence in dispute with the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the gen. reading was im- portant to the orthodox, as expressing agency, and that atoue. But it seems pretty clear that the variation was oldev than the time of this heresy, and, how- ever it may then have been appealed to, its origin cannot be assigned to any falsi- fication by either of the then disputant parties. As to how far the Holy Spirit is the direct Agent in the resurrection of the body, see note on πνεῦμα ζωοπ., 1 Cor. xv. 45, and on 2 Cor. v. 5.. Here, His direct agency cannot be in any way surprising, for it is the whole process of bringing from death to life, extending even to the mortal body, which is here spoken of—and unquestionably, ‘the Lord and Giver of Life’ is the agent throughout in this quickening. ‘Non de ultima resur- rectione, que momento fiet, habetur sermo, sed de continua Spiritus operatione, que reliquias carnis paullatim mortificans, ce- lestem vitam in nobis instaurat.’ Calv. :— but perhaps ‘non solwm de ultima resur- rectione,’ would have been more correct : for it certainly is one thing spoken of. 12, 13.] So then, brethren, we are (inference from the assurance in the last verse) debtors (we owe fealty: to what or whom, he leaves the reader to supply from ver. 11), not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh (Chrysostom well explains the qualification, τοῦ κατὰ o. ¢.,— καὶ yap πολλὰ αὐτῇ ὀφείλομεν, Td τρέφειν αὐτήν, τὸ θάλπειν, τὸ ἀναπαύειν, τὸ θερα- πεύειν νοσοῦσαν, τὸ περιβάλλειν, καὶ μυρία ἕτερα λειτουργεῖν. iW οὖν μὴ νομίσῃς “ > Sr. ταύτην ἀναιρεῖ τὴν διακονίαν, εἰπὼν" οὐκ ἐσμ. ὀφ. τῇ σαρ., ἑρμηνεύει αὐτὸ λέγων τοῦ κ. σ. Civ’... τουτέστι μὴ ποιῶμεν αὐτὴν κυρίαν τῆς ζωῆς THs ἡμετέ- pas. Hom, xiv. p. 576): for if ye live ac- cording to the flesh, ye [must (or, ] will, μέλλετε of the certain end of your present course) die (Civ and ἀποθν. here in their full and pregnant sense, involving body and soul here and hereafter: but not to be un- derstood as excluding the carnal from any 12—15. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOT®S. 991 14. “ x , θ a wt ° xi. ΦΎΣΙΣ oa ol yap σπινευματι εου αγονται, OUTOL VLOL ELOLV w= and a κ᾿ 2 = constr., Gal. θεοῦ. 1 οὐ yap " ἐλάβετε ¥ πνεῦμα * δουλείας πάλιν ὃ εἰς γ.18. 2 Tim. ΄ \ ~ / a e ΄ 2 ΄ rer. 19 reff. Φόβον, ἀλλὰ Y ἐλάβετε "5 πνεῦμα * υἱοθεσίας, 4 ἐν ᾧ “ἴ κρά- ¥ Acts vii 15 z constr., 2 Cor. iv. 13. et ΤΕ lone ὴ xx. 2 ἘΠῚ - ch. v. 16 reff. a = Gali wis.t: e Gal. iv. 6. aver. 21. Gal. iv. 24. vy. 1. Heb. ii. 15 only. Exod. ce ver. 23. ch. ix. 4. Gal. iv.5. Eph. i. 5 only t. f Mark x. 48|| L. Ps. Ixxvi. 1. evi. 6, &c. 14. rec εἰσιν viot θεου (corrn of order, as is also v. 0. €1.), with KL[P] rel [vulg- clem(with harl tol) copt syr arm Clem,] Chr, Thdrt [Cyr,-p Euthal-ms Gennad-c Orig-int, ] Iren-int,: vs. θε. εἰσ. ACDN [47 spec] fuld eth Orig,[int, 14,7 Damase Cypr, [Ambrst] Cassiod Gaud: txt BF am(with demid al) Syr Orig,[int,] Did[-int, ] Hil, Aug Bede. 15. (adda, so ΑΒΟΝ [Clem, Orig, ].) resurrection—only from that which is truly (jv,—any more than the spiritual are exempted from all death, but only from that which is truly θάνατος): but if by the Spirit ye slay (abolish, annul) the deeds (hardly as Thol. ‘sensu obscceno,’ but as Col. iii. 9, the whole course of habits and action which has the flesh for its prompter) of the body (= τῆς σαρκός, but here concrete to give more vivid reality : compare τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, Gal. v. 19), ye shall live (not μέλλετε ζῆν, this Life being no natural consequence of a course of mortifying the deeds of the body, but the gift of God through Christ : and com- ing therefore in the form of an assurance, ‘ye shall live,’ from Christ’s Apostle. On ζῆν, see above). 14.] For (ground of the assurance contained in ζήσεσθε) as many as are led by (reff. ;—the slaying the deeds of the body by the Spirit, implies the being under the Spirit’s guidance) the Spirit of God, these (emphatic—‘ these and no others’) are sons of God. vids @. differs from τέκνον 0. in implying the higher and more mature and conscious member of God’s family, see Gal. iv. 1—6, and note on 6. Hence our Lord is never called τέκνον but always υἱὸς θεοῦ. This latter, applied to a Christian, signifies ‘ one born of God’ in the deepest relation to him,—and hence a partaker of His nature, 1 John iii. 9; 1 Pet. i. 23 (Tholuck, simi- larly Olsh.). 15, 16.] Appeal to the CONSCIOUSNESS of the Christian to confirm the assertion (assumed for the moment that he 15 led by God’s Spirit) that he is a son of God. For (confirmantis) ye did not receive (at your becoming Christians) the spirit ot bondage (= ‘ the Spirit which ye received was not a spirit of bondage.’ mv. is not merely a spirit, a disposition, but evidently refers to the same πν. which afterwards is mv. υἱοθεσ., and αὐτὸ τὸ mr. The Apostle seems however in this form of expression, both here and elsewhere, see reff., to have combined the objective Πνεῦμα given to us by God with our own subjective πνεῦμα. In the next verse they are sepa- rated) [leading back (or,j again[; but the latter word is undesirable, as] it has been imagined here that the πάλιν must refer to a former bestowal of the πνεῦμα δουλείας, and consequently that the refer- ence is to the O. I. dispensation. In this two different sets of Commentators have found difficulties ; (1) those, as Chrys.,— who would hold from John vii. 39, that the Holy Spirit was absolutely not given under the O. T., and (2) those, as Cocceius, who holding Him to have been given, deny that His character was mv. δουλείας. But there seems to me to be no occasion to go back for the reference of πάλιν to the O.T. The state of the natural man is δουλεία : the Holy Spirit given to them, the agent of their birth into, and sustainer of, a new state, was not a mv. δουλείας πάλιν εἰς ., a spirit merely to retair them in, or take them back into their old state, viz. a state of slavery :—to whom, or whether to different masters, is not here in question, but the state merely— the object of the gift of the Holy Spirit was not to lead them back into this) towards fear (so as to bring about or result im fear, see ch. vi. 19. πάλιν can hardly, as De W., be taken with eis φόβ.), but ye received the Spirit of (the Spirit whose effect was, see above) adoption (this stricter meaning, and not that of mere sonship, is plainly that intended by the Apostle, both here and in reff. So Fritz., Meyer, Olsh., Harless on Eph. i. 5, Tho- luck: on the other hand Luther, Winer, Riickert, De Wette, al., see on ver. 23. Of course, the adoption to be a son involves sonship, but not the converse), in whom (compare ἐν πνεύματι ch. ii. 29, and ver. 9. Luth. and Tholuck, ‘through, by means ot, whom: but τὸ mredjua = Him in whom, not merely Him ὅψ whom, not being merely an external agent, but an indwelling and pervading power) we cry (the earnest expression of supplieating prayer, see reff. LXX) Abba, Father (I have said, on ref. Mark, that ὁ mar. does not appear to be a mere explanation of wax, but to have been joined to it in one phrase, as a form of address: expressing probably, a corresponding ‘my father,’ ‘28, in the Heb. expression. Luther, to 992 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. VIL ,’ lal ς a a g Gal. as above Comey ® ABA ξὸ πατήρ. 16 αὐτὸ "τὸ πνεῦμα ἱσυμμαρτυρεῖ ark (60). M xiv. 36 only. th absol., Acts x. 19 reff. i ch. ii. 15. ix. 1 only t. τῷ k - / « fal .“ 9 \ l 6 ] ω TTVEULATL μων OTL ἐσμεν “τέκνα θεοῦ. 17 εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ ™ κληρονόμοι" ™ κληρονόμοι μὲν θεοῦ, " συγκληρονόμοι ase \ a / 7 \ a“ k = λον νι, δὲ χριστοῦ" ° εἴπερ ? συνπάσχομεν, iva καὶ 4 συνδοξασθῶ- 1 = ver. 21 ch ix.8. Johni. 12. xi,52. Phil. ii. 15. 1 John iii. Listes 10. Shae n Eph. iii. 6. Heb. xi. 9. 1 Kings xxii. 8 Symm. [or Anon.] iv. 13 reff. p 1 Cor. xii. 26 only t+. 16. at beg ins wore D[-gr 1 Pet. iii. 7 only +. (see Gal. iv. 28,31. Eph. vy. 8.) (-μεῖν, Sir. xxii. 23.) q here only t. m ch, o ver, 9 reff. 71: aft αὐτὸ ins yap 115-24 vulg(demid harl! mar!: not am [fuld tol |) Thdrt ΤῺ] { Orig-int, Did-int,] Pel. 17. for 1st KAnpov., συνκληρονομοι D1[-gr |. A[P b (m) 17. 47 Tert, Cypr, ].) express the familiarity of Abba, renders ‘lieber Vater,’ ‘dear Father’). See on the whole, the strictly parallel place, ref. Gal. 16.} And this confidence is grounded on the testimony of the Spirit itself. So Chrys.: ov yap ἀπὸ τῆς φωνῆς loxupiCouat μόνον, φησίν, ἀλλὰ Kal ἀπὸ τῆς αἰτίας ad hs ἡ φωνὴ τίκτεται οὐ γὰρ τοῦ χαρίσματός ἐστιν ἣ φωνὴ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ δόντος τὴν δωρεὰν παρακλήτου αὐτὸς γὰρ ἡμᾶς οὗτος ἐδί- dake διὰ τοῦ χαρίσματος οὕτω φθέγγεσθαι. Hom. xiv. p. ὅ79. This verse being with- out copula, is best understood to refer to the same as the preceding, and the asser- tion to concern the same fact as the last verb, xpaCouev,—as if it were αὐτοῦ τοῦ πν. συμμαρτυροῦντος K.T.A., grounding that fact on an act of the indwelling Spirit Himself. See again Gal. iv. 6. The Spirit itself (not ‘zdem Spiritus, as Erasm. and similarly Luth., Reiche, al.: the αὐτό expresses the independence, and at the same time, as coming from God, the precious- ness and importance of the testimony) testifies to our spirit (see ch. ii. 15, and note: not ‘una testatur:’? the σύν in composition does not refer to τῷ mv. Hu, but to agreement in the fact, as in ‘ con- testari,’ ‘ confirmare ᾽) that we are chil- dren of God. What is this witness of the Spirit itself? All have agreed, and indeed this verse is decisive for it, that it is some- thing separate from, and higher than, all subjective inferences and conclusions. But on the other hand it does not consist in mere indefinite feeling, but in a certitude of the Spirit's presence and work con- tinually asserted within us. It is mani- fested, as Olsh. beautifully says, in His comforting us, His stirring us up to prayer, His reproof of our sins, His drawing us to works of love, to bear testimony before the world, &c. And he adds, with equal truth, “On this direct testimony of the Holy Ghost rests, ultimately, all the regene- rate man’s conviction respecting Christ and His work. For belief in Scripture itself (he means, in the highest sense of the term ‘belief,’ =‘ conviction personally applied’) has its foundation in this experience of the (cuvracx., so AB1'CDFR.—xouev divine nature of the (influencing) Principle which it promises, and which, while the believer is studying it, infuses itself into him.” The same Commentator remarks, that this is one of the most decisive pas- sages against the pantheistic view of the identity of the Spirit of God and the spirit of man. However the one may by reno- vating power be rendered like the other, there still is a specific difference. The spirit of man may siz (2 Cor. vii. 1), the Spirit of God cannot, but can only be grieved (Eph. iv. 30), or quenched (1 ‘Thess. v. 19), and it is by the infusion of this highest Principle of Holiness, that man be- comes ONE SPIRIT with the Lord Himseif {{ Cor? 37} τέκνα θεοῦ] Here, (not viol) because the testimony respects the very ground and central point of son- ship, likeness to and desire for God: the testimony of the Spirit shewing us by our yearnings after, our confidence in, our re- gard to God, that we are verily begotten of Him. 17.| CONSEQUENCES of our being children of God. But (announcing a result, as in a mathematical proposition : ‘but, if &e.’) if children, also heirs (which is the universal rule of mankind : but «Anp. here must not be carried to the extent of the idea of hezr in all directions : it is merely the one side of inheriting by promise, which is here brought out: the word referring back probably to ch. iv. 13, 14, the promise to Abraham); heirs of God (as our Father, giving the inherit- ance to us), and joint-heirs with Christ (whom God has made κληρονόμον πάντων, Heb. i. 2. Tholuck remarks: “ It is by virtue of their substantial unity with the father, that the children come*fthto participation of his possession. —The Roman luw regarded them as continuators of his personality. The dignity of the inherit- ance is shewn (1) by its being God’s pos- session, (2) by its being the possession of the Firstborn of God. By the Roman law, the share of the firstborn was no greater than that of the other children,—and the N. T. sets forth this view, making the redeemed equal to Christ (ver. 29), and Christ’s possessions, theirs ; 1 Cor. iii, 21— ee ABCDF © KL[PJx abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] 16—19. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 593 / \ δ “A μεν" 18 τ λογίζομαι yap ὅτι οὐκ * ἄξια τὰ ἃ παθήματα ¥ τοῦ = andconstr., νῦν " καιροῦ δ" πρὸς τὴν *Y μέλλουσαν ¥* δόξαν 5 atroxa- , (. 19 £ \ ο 7 ὃ / Aad / t= ἡ γὰρ “ ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς “ κτίσεως ". ch, ii. 3 reff, 28.) s here only. - Gen. xxili. Cf b ς᾽ Ἑ “ λυφθῆναι ὃ εἰς ἡμᾶς. 4 Glin: xxi. 22, 24. Prov. iii. 15, viii. 11. Sir. xxvi. 15. (see note.) u ch. vii. ὃ reff. v ch. iii. 26 reff. w = Jer. xxiii. 28. x = ver. 13. w. inf. aor., Gal. iii. 23. Rev. i. 19. iii. 2. xii. 4. transp. of words, Gal. iii. 23. 1 Cor. xii. 22. y 1 Pet. v..1. z = ch. ii. 7 reff. a = Luke xvii. 30. ch. i. 18. b = here only. ce Phil. i. 20 only+. (-κεῖν, Ps. xxxvi. 7 Aq. Jos. B. J. iii, 7. 26. 18. for yap, δε Α[Ρ] 9 eth: Polyb. xvi. 2. 8.) 23; John xvii. 22. In the joznt-heirship we must not bring out this point, that Christ is the rightful Heir, who shares His in- heritance with the other children of God: it is as adoptive children that they get the inheritance, and Christ is so far only the means of it, as He gives them power to become sons of God, John i. 12”); if at least (see above on ver. 9) we are suffer- ing with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him: i.e. ‘if (provided that) we are found in that course of par- ticipation in Christ’s sufferings, whose aim and end, as that of His sufferings, is to be glorified as He was, and with Him. But the εἴπερ does not regard the subjective aim, q. ἃ. ‘ If at least our aim in suffering is, to be glorified,—but the fact of our being partakers of that course of sufferings with Him, whose aim is, wherever it is found, to be glorified with Him. Thol. takes the ἵνα as dependent on συγ- KAnp. (= ὥςτε), and εἴπερ συνπ. as quasi- parenthetical ; but the above seems to me more satisfactory. The connexion of suffering with Christ, and being glorified with Him is elsewhere insisted on, see 2 linea. 110 LoPet.ived3'; ve i This last clause serves as a transition to vv. 18—30, in which the Apostle treats of the complete and glorious triumph of God’s elect, through sufferings and by hope, and the blessed renovation of all things in and by their glorification. 18.] For (= this suffering with Him in order to being glorified with Him is no casting away of toil and self-denial, seeing that) reckon (implying, ‘I myself am one who have embraced this course, being con- vinced’) that the sufferings of this pre- sent period (of trial and sorrow, contrasted with the period of triumph following the παρουσία of Christ) are insignificant. (οὐκ ἄξια = avdtia,—no gen. or verb under- stood. ἄξιος and ἀνάξιος are found in the sense of ‘worthy (or unworthy) to be compared with’ in the classics: so Hom. Il. @. 234, viv δ᾽ οὔθ᾽ ἑνὸς ἄξιοι ἐσμὲν “Extopos, and Plato, Protag. (Wetst.), ἀνάξιά ἐστι τ᾽ ἀγαθὰ τῶν κακῶν, and again τίς ἄλλη Gvakia ἡ)ονὴ πρὸς λύπην ἐστίν ;) in comparison with the glory which is to be revealed (μέλλ. put first, as in reff., but apparently not, as De W., for the sake of = Mark xvi. 15. (ver. 39.) Judith xvi. 14. ergo Ambrst [om Lucif, 1. emphasis. Thol. cites Demosth., p. 486. 10, ἐν τοῖς οὖσι νόμοις κυρίοις, in which there is no emphasis. as neither in ref. 1 Cor. ἄποκαλ., at the ἀποκάλυψις of Christ. On the sentiment, see 2 Cor. iv. 17) with regard to us (not merely ἡμῖν, as spectators, but eis ἡμᾶς, as the subjects of the revelation; the E. V. is not far wrong, ‘im us,’ taking the eis in a pregnant sense as ἦν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συν., Luke iv. 44 [but it must not be understood as meaning wethin us, in our hearts }). Bernard amplifies this—de Con- vers. ad Cleric. 6. xxi. 37 (30), vol. i. p. 494,—* non sunt condigne passiones hujus temporis ad preeteritam culpam que re- mittitur, non ad presentem consolationis gratiam que immittitur, non ad futuram gloriam que promittitur nobis.’ 19 ff.] The greatness of this glory is shewn by the fact that ALL CREATION, now under the bondage of corruption, shall be set free Srom it by the glorification of the sons of God. For (proof of this transcendent greatness of the glory, not, as De W., of the certainty of its manifestation, though this secondary thought is perhaps in the background) the patient expectation (hardly = ἡ σφόδρα mposdoxia, as Chrys., whom Luther and E. V. follow; but better mposdoxia eis τὸ TEAOS,—the ἀπό denoting, as also in ἀπεκδέχεται, that the expectation continues till the time is exhausted, and the event arrives) of the creation (= all this world except man, both animate and inanimate: see an account of the exegesis below) waits for (see above) the revelation of the sons of God (‘revelatur gloria: et tum revelantur etiam filii Dei.’ Beng. υἱῶν, not τέκνων, because their son- ship will be complete, and possessed of all its privileges and glories). ἡ κτίσις has been very variously understood. There is a full history of the exegesis in Tholuck. De Wette sums it up thus: “The Crea- tion,—i.e. things created,—has by many been erroneously taken in an arbitrarily limited sense; 6. g. as applying only, I. to inanimate creation, as Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., Beza, Aret.,‘mundimachina,’ Luther, the Schmidts, al., Fritz., ‘mundi machina, celi sidera, aer, terra ? —against this are the words οὐχ ἑκοῦσα and συνστενάζει κ. συνωδίνει, implying life in the κτίσις,---- ‘ 994 ΠΡΟΣ ῬΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. ΨΠΠΙ. “- νυ e cal ’ , 9 an echii.s. τὴν " ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν f υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ 8 ἀπεκδέχεται. 50 τῇ cre 1 Cor. 1. 7. \ ; Ξ- ; ᾿Ξ - ᾿ Fe ἣν ᾿ A 2 Thess. i. 7 h d i k 2 Thess.i-7 yap ἢ ματαιοτητί ἡ “ κτίσις ' ὑπετάγη οὐχ cen oe ἊΣ ed , Do \ \ e / 5 > / ΄] fMattv-%, διὰ τὸν | ὑποτάξαντα, ™ém ἐλπίδι, 31 ὅτι καὶ “αὐτὴ ἡ πὶ nol? i. Gal. tik 26. Rev. xxi. 7. g here &c.,3ce. 1 Cor.i.7. Gal.v.5. Phil. iii. 20. Heb. ix. 28. 1 Pet. [ J iii. 20 only τ. ἢ = here (Eph. iv. 17. 2 Pet. ii. 18) only. Eccles. i. 2. (-ova@at, ch. i. 21.) i ver. 7 reff. k 1 Cor. ix. 17 only. Exod. xxi. 13 only. lact., 1 Cor. xv. 27 & Heb. ii. 8, from Ps. viii. 6. Eph. i. 22. Phil. iii. 21. m ch. iv. 18 reff. 19. om tov F. 20. for ovx εκουσα, ov θελουσα ΕΚ, ed B'D'I FR. 21. διοτι DFR. om 7 F for to set these down to mere personifica- ing by that reference: see ver. 11. He tion is surely arbitrary:—and one can imagine no reason why bestial creation should be excluded. II. to /éving creation: (1) to mankind ; Aug., Turret., all., take it of men not yet believers : (2) Locke, Lightf., Hammond, Semler, of the yeé unconverted Gentiles: (3) Cramer, Gers- dorf, al., of the yet unconverted Jews : (4) Le Clere, al., of the converted Gentiles : (5) al., of the converted Jews ; (6) al., of all Christians ?’—* but,” as he proceeds, “ against (II.) lies this objection, that if the Apostle had wished to speak of the en- slaving and freeing of mankind, he hardly would have omitted reference to sin as the ground of the one and faith of the other, and the judgment on unbelievers. But on the other hand we must not extend the idea of κτίσις too wide, as Theodoret, who includes the angels, Kéllner, who under- stands the whole Creation, animate and inanimate, rational and irrational, and Olsh., who includes the unconverted Gen- tiles : nor make it too indefinite, as Koppe and Rosenm.: ‘tota rerum universitas.’ The right explanation is, all animate and inanimate nature as distinguished from mankind : so Irenzus, Grot., Calov., Wolf, Rickert, Reiche, al., Meyer, Neander, Schneckenburger, Thol.” The idea of the renovation and glorification of all nature at the revelation of the glory of our re- turned Saviour, will need no apology nor seem strange to the readers of this com- mentary, nor to the students of the fol- lowing, and many other passages of the prophetic word: Isa. xi. 6 ff. ; Ιχν. 17 ff. ; Rev. xxi.; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Acts ‘iii. 21. 20.| Haplanation of the REASON WHY all creation waits, ὅδ. For the creation was made subject to vanity (= 527, Ps. XXXI1X. 6,—where (xxxvili. 5) the LXXx have τὰ σύμπαντα ματαιότης. So also Eccles. i. 2 and passim. It signifies the instability, liability to change and decay, of all created things) not willingly (‘cum a corruptione natura res omnes abhor- reant.’ Bucer in Thol.) but on account of (διά is so far from losing its proper meaning by the reference of τὸν ὑποτάξ- avra to God, as Jowett affirms, that it gains its strictest and most proper mean- is the occasion, and His glory the end, of creation’s corruptibility) Him who made it subject (i.e. God. Chrys., al., inter- pret it of Adam, who was the occasion of its being subjected ; and at first sight the acc. with διά seems to favour this. But i very much doubt whether this view can be borne out. For (1) does not ὑποτάξαντα imply a conscious act of intentional sub- jugation, and not merely an unconscious occasioning of the subjugation? Thus we have it said of God, ref. 1 Cor., πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ" ὅταν δὲ K.T.A., δῆλον ὅτι ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. And (2) the ace. aft. διά is in reality no reason against this. He is speaking of the originating cause of this subjection, not of the efficient means of it. He says that creation was not subjected ἑκοῦσα, i.e. διὰ τὸ θέλημα ἑαυτῆς, but διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντας, At the same time such a way of putting it, removing as it were the supreme will of God to a wider distance from corruption and vanity, and making it not so much the worker as the occasion of it, as well as this indefinite mention of Him, is quite intelligible on the ground of that reverential awe which so entirely characterizes the mind and writings of the Apostle. If the occasion pointed at by ὑποτάξαι be required, 1 should hardly fix it at the Fall of man, but at his creation, in the eternai counsels, —when he was made capable of falling, liable to change. The explanation of 6 ὑποτάξας as meaning ‘the devil’ (Locke, al.), hardly needs refutation. See Matt. Χ. 28, and note),—in (‘on condition of,’ ‘in a state of, see ch. iv. 18, and note on ἐφ᾽ @, ch. v. 12) hope (ἐπ᾽ éanibemust not be joined with ὑποτάξαντα, because then the ἐλπίς becomes the hope of the ὑπο- tdéas,—but with ὑπετάγη, being the hope of the ὑποταγεῖσα), because (not “ that,’ after ἐλπίς,---ἴον then it is not likely that αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις would be so emphatically. repeated : the clause now announces a new Jact, and thus the emphasis is accounted for. To suppose the whole clause subjec- tive to the ἐλπίς, would be to attribute to the yearnings of creation, intelligence and rationality,—consciousness of itself and of 20—23, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 395 ἃ κτίσις " ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς ° δουλείας τῆς Ῥ φθορᾶς x ob. vi. 18 ree. ο » \ ῇ an / -“ ΄ A Ξ »“ εἰς τὴν 1 ἐλευθερίαν τῆς " δόξης τῶν " τέκνων τοῦ 5 θεοῦ. ῶ 7 \ rd a e ΄ 22 οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ ἃ κτίσις ' συνστενάζει καὶ ἃ συν- 7 le “ ζ ὠδίνει τ ἄχρι τοῦ “νῦν 385 χοὐὺ μόνον δέ, " ἀλλὰ καὶ ver. 15 reff. p = 1 Cor. xv. 42,50. Gal. 19 only. Jonah ii. 7. 2 Cor. iii. 17. >’ \ \ “ A αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες ἡμεῖς καὶ “ames τ, 35. ii. 12 al. b] A c , 5 αὐτοὶ ἐν * ἑαυτοῖς * στενάζομεν, ὃ υἱοθεσίαν ° ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τῶν. xix. 20. t here only +. s ver. 16 ref. i w Phil. i. 5. iii. 14, Gal. iv. 2 al. ἃ here only t. v=:ch.i. 13. 1Cor.iv. 11. 2Cor. x ch. v. 3. 2 Cor. viii. 19 al. fr. ch. xi. bf Exod. xxiii. 19 al. fr. 16. xvi. 5. 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23. xvi. 15. 2 Thess. ii. 13. Jamesi. 18. Rev. xiv. 4 only. z Ist pers., 2 Cor. iil. 1 reff. Mark vii. 34. 2 Cor. ν. 2,4. Heb. xiii. 17. James v.9 only. Isa. xxiv. ἡ. b ver. 15 reff. c ver. 19. 22. for yap, δε A: om eth. ωὠδυνει F, (συνστεναζει, so B'DF 17.) for συνωδ., 23. rec 2nd καὶ bef nues, with (DF)KL[P] 17 rel [syr] Chr, Thdrt,(readg κ. nu. avt. before) [ΤῊ] (ic: txt ACN [47] Damasec.—DF transpose kat ἡμεις avto: and και αυτοι: B[ Meth, Orig-int, Aug,] (omg ἡμει5) have καὶ avtoe both times: for other variations see Scholz. DF Ambrst. God) the creation itself also (not only we, the sons of God, but even creation itself) shall be delivered from the bond- age of corruption (its subjection to the law of decay, see Heb. ii. 15) into (preg- nant: shall be delivered from, &c., and admitted into) the freedom of the glory (beware of the fatal hendiadys : ‘ the free- dom of the glory ’ is not in any sense = ‘the glorious freedom ;’ in the latter, ‘ glorious’ is merely an epithet whereby the freedom is characterized, as in ‘ His rest shall be glorious :’ in the former the freedom is de- scribed as consisting in, belonging to, being one component part of, the glorified state of the children of God: and thus the thought is carried up to the state to which the freedom belongs) of the children (τέκνων and not υἱῶν here, perhaps as em- bracing God’s universal family of creation, admitted, each in their share, to a place in incorruptibility and glory). 22. ] For we know (said of an acknowledged and patent fact, see ch. ii. 2; iii. 19; vii. 14) that the whole creation groans together and travails together (not, groans and travails with us or with mankind, which would render the ov μόνον δὲ ἀλλά of the next verse superfluous. On the figure in συνωδίνει see John xvi. 21, note) [until now (1.6.1 up to this time = from the beginning till now: no reference to time future, because οἴδαμεν yap expresses the results of experience). 23.] The text here is in inextricable confusion (see var. read.), but the sense very little affected. But (moreover) not only (the creation), but even ourselves, possessing (not ‘who possess, οἱ ἔχοντες, but ‘though we pos- sess’) the firstfruit of the Spirit (i.e. the indwelling and influences of the Holy Spirit here, as an earnest of the full har- vest of His complete possession of us, πνεῦμα and σάρξ and ψυχή, hereafter. συνστεναζομεν (or συστ.) D f 38. 72. om υἱοθεσιαν That this is the meaning, seems evident from the analogy of St. Paul’s imagery re- garding the Holy Spirit: he treats of Him as an earnest and pledge given to us, Eph. i. 14; 2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5, and of His full work in us as the efficient means of our glorifica- tion hereafter, ver. 11 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18. Va- rious other renderings are,— (1) ‘ the first outpouring of the Spirit, in point of time, —Wetst., Reiche, K6lln., Mey., al..— which would be irrelevant : (2) ‘the highest gifts of the Spirit, as the Schmidts, al. The gen. mv. may be partitive or subjective :— the firstfruit of the Spirit,—which Spirit is the harvest,—or the firstfruit of the Spirit,—which the Spirit gives :—or even in apposition, the firstfruit of the Spirit, i.e. which consists in (the gift of) the Spirit. I prefer the first, from analogy— the Spirit being generally spoken of as given, not as giving,—and God as the Giver), even we ourselves (repeated for emphasis, and ἡμεῖς inserted to involve himself and his fellow-workers in the general description of the last clause. Some (Wolf, K@élln.) have imagined the Apostles only to be spoken of: some, that the Apostles are meant in one place, and all Christians in the other) groan within ourselves, awaiting the fulness of [the (ον, our) adoption (ἀπεκδ., as above, ver. 19, but even more strongly here, ‘ wazt out,’ “ wait for the end of.’ Our adoption is come already, ver. 15, so that we do not wait for it, but for the full manifesta- tion of it, in our bodies being rescued from the bondage of corruption and sin. This which in Gr. is expressed by the verb, in Eng. must be joined to the substantive. The omission of the art. before υἷοθ. is pro- bably on account of its preceding its verb, —viod. amexd. = ἀπεκδ. τὴν viod., for emphasis’ sake) the redemption (in appo- sition with υἷοθ., or rather with the fulness 990 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. VIII. dch.iii 4 ret. Τὴν ὃ ἀπολύτρωσιν TOD σώματος ἡμῶν. 38 TH γὰρ ἐλπίδι ABCDF e = 2 Cor. iv. sichelied : KL[PJx 5 4 s).. ¢ δ λ 6 4 > Μ i, ge a! εὐξ δῆσον, ἐσώθημεν, ἐλπὶς δὲ “ βχλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς" ὃ γὰρ abe as 30. ; , ͵ ° \ > ' ΟΣ > \ aA > ‘ gHeb.xiit. βλέπει τίς, ἴ τί [Fai] ἐλπίζει; 38 εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν, (ὦ ποιῇ h ch. ii. 7 reff. 4 - a > gh © at ee ; 96 i; , [47] | 11 Cor.xi25 ἐλπίζομεν, 8 δι᾿ δι ὑπομονῆς “ ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. 538 ' ὡςαύτως k Luke x. 40 δὲ \ \ a k / , ° ] > θ / af A only. Gen. O€ καὶ TO πνεῦμα * συναντιλαμβάνεται TH |! aT EVELA ἡμῶν. xxx. 8 Ed- vat(Bdef) πὰ τὸ yap τί προςευξώμεθα ° καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν, GAN Exod. xviii. 22, Num. x} men \ a p< δ ΄ 4 a ΡΥ ye : 11. Ps. αὐτὸ TO TVEVULa UTTEDEVTUYV QAVEL OTEVAYMOLS § AAAANTOLS Ixxxviii. 21 only. (av7tA-, Acts xx. 35.) 1 Matt. viii. 17. 1 Cor. ii. 3 reff. m art., Mark τ 23. Lukei. 62. Acts xxii. 30. 1 Thess. iv. 1. aap στὸ ΠΡ. Winer, edn. 6, 3 18. 3. o 2 Cor. viii. 12 (bis). 1 Pet. iv. 13 only. Levit. ix. 5 Β. p here only t. q Acts vii. 34 only. Job iii. 24 al. r here only+. = ἄνεκλ., 1 Pet. i. 3. 24. ins ἡ bef BAerouern F 55. om tt Bl(added by original scribe: see table) XN! [47 copt}. ree ins καὶ, with ACKLN[P 471]: om BDF 47-marg(noting τὸ πα- λαιὸν οὕτως ἔχει [ὁ yap Brewer Tis ελπιζει7) latt. for ελπιζει, υπομενεὶ AN! 47-marg [but see above]: exspectat syrr Ambry. 26. rec ταις ασθενειαις (see note), with KL[P] 17 rel [syr copt] Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] ce: τὴ" denoews F: txt ABCDN m [47] vulg Syr [eth arm] Cyr-jer, Damase [Orig-int, | lat-tf. [om ἡμων D'(and lat?). | mposevioueba DKL{ P] rel Orig, Naz Cyr- jer, Mac, Chr, (Cyr,-p] Damase (Kc: mposevxoueda F: txt ABC Chr, Thdrt, Thi. rec aft ὑπερεντυγχανει ins ὑπερ quev, with CKL[ P]N3 17 rel vulg D8-lat [F-lat] Syr [syr copt arm-mss] Cyr-jer, [Eus,] Did Epiph[-ms,] Chr, Thdrt Aug,epe Jer: [pref 47 Hil, :] om ABDFN! arm{-zoh] Orig. (always adds tw θεω) Epiph{-ed}] Damase Aug). of sense implied in υἷοθ. ἀπεκδ.. q.d. ‘ ex- pecting that full and perfect adoption which shall consist in...) of our body (ποῦ, ‘rescue from our body,’ as Erasm., Le Clere, Reiche, Fritz., al.,—which though allowable in grammar,—see Heb. ix. 15,— is inconsistent with the doctrine of the change of the vile and mortal into the glo- -rious and immortal body,—Phil. iii. 21; 2 Cor. v. 2—4,—but the (entire) redemp- tion,—rescue,—of the body from corrup- tion and sin). 24, 25.] For (confirma- tion of the last assertion, proving hope to be our present state of salvation)—in hope were we (not, ‘are we,’ nor ‘have we been’) saved: i.e. our first apprehension of, and appropriation to ourselves of, salvation which is by faith in Christ, was effected in the condition of hope: which hope (Thol.) is in fact faith in its prospective attitude, —that faith which is ὑπόστασις ἐλπιζο- μένων, Heb. xi. 1. The dat. ἐλπίδι is not a dat. of reference,—‘ according to hope,’ —but of the form or condition. Now hope that is seen (the object or fulfilment of which is present and palpable) is not hope: for that which any one sees, why does he [also (or, at all)] hope for? If καί is to stand in the text, it conveys, after an interrogative word, a sense of the utter superfiuity of the thing questioned about, as being irrelevant, and out of the ques- tion. ‘Qui interrogat τί χρὴ προςδοκᾷν ; exspectat aliquid, sed dubius est quid eve- niat. Qui interrogat τί χρὴ καὶ mpos- δοκᾶν ; desperat de salute, nec eam usquam exspectari posse existimat.’ Bremi in De- mosth. Phil. i. 46, cited in Hartung, Par- tikellehre, i. 137. 25.] But if that which we do not see, we hope for, with patience we wait for it. Patience (en- durance) is the state, in which,—through which as ὦ medium,—our waiting takes place: hence δι᾽ ὑπομονῆς, as ἔγραψα du. διὰ πολλῶν δακρύων, 2 Cor. ii. 4. 26.] Likewise (another help to our endurance, co-ordinate with the last —our patience is one help to it, but not the only one) the Spirit also (the Holy Spi- rit of God) helps our weakness (not, helps us to bear our weakness, as if the weakness were the burden, which the Spirit lifts for and with us,—but, helps our weakness,— us who are weak, to bear the burden of ver. 23. And this weakness is not only inability to pray aright, which is only an example of it, but general weakness. This has been seen, and the reading consequent- ly altered to the plural, which was at first perhaps a marginal gloss). For (example of the help above mentioned ;—the τό bind- ing together the clause,—ssee feff.,—and here implying ‘exempli gratia,’ —‘ for this viz. what to &c.’) what we should pray as we ought (two things ;—what we should pray,—the matter of our prayer;—and how we should pray it,—the form and manner of our prayer) we know not: but the Spirit itself (Thol. remarks,—airé brings into more prominence the idea of the πνεῦμα, so as to express of what dignity our Inter- cessor is,— an Intercessor who knows best what our wants are) intercedes (ὑπέρ here does not intensify the verb, as in émep- νικᾷν and the like, and as (£c., Erasm., Luth., Bengel, render it,—but implies 24—28, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 5397 27 ὁ be Se νῶν TA bb i ( τὸ ἢ ‘ 5) sJohn v.39. vii. ὁ δὲ " ἐρευνῶν Tas καρδίας oidev τί τὸ ᾿ φρόνημα TOD sJobny.29. 7 “ u \ u θ μ᾽ v2 / e \ w S / πνεύματος, ὅτι “Kata ἃ θεὸν " ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ * ἁγίων. 9) f Lg a > a“ \ lal 28 οἴδαμεν δὲ OTL τοῖς * ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν * θεὸν πάντα ¥ συνεργεῖ v Acts xxv. 24 reff. y Mark xvi. 20, u 2 Cor. vii. 9—11. x 1 Cor. viii. 3 reff. vii. 2. 1 Mace. xii. 1 only. (-yos, ch. xvi. 3.) 27. (εραυνων N: txt B(Verc expr, Tischdf) [ &c.: evpeywy m].) L[ Tischdf] 73: ἐνντυγχανι &. the advocacy,—‘ convenire aliquem super negotio alterius,’ as Grot.,—to express which the ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν of the rec. has been inserted) with groanings which cannot be expressed:—i.e. the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in us, knowing our wants better than we, Himself pleads in our prayers, raising us to higher and holier desires than we can express in words, which can only find utterance in sighings and aspirations: see next verse. So De W., Thol., Olsh. Chrys. (Hom. xiv., p. 586) interprets it of the χάρισμα of prayer —and adds 6 yap τοιαύτης καταξιωθεὶς χάριτος, ἑστὼς μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς KaTa- νύξεως, μετὰ πολλῶν τῶν στεναγμῶν τῶν κατὰ διάνοιαν τῷ θεῷ προςπίπτων, τὰ συμ- φέροντα πᾶσιν ἥἤτει :—similarly (Ec. and Theophyl. Calv. understands, that the Spirit suggests to us the proper words of acceptable prayer, which would otherwise have been unutterable by us : and similarly Beza, Grot. ἀλαλήτοις may bear three meanings—1l, unspoken: 2, that does not speak,—mute (see LXX, Job xxxviii. 14; Sir. xvili. 33 compl.): 3, that cannot be spoken. The analogy of verbals in -ros in the N. T. favours the latter meaning: com- pare ἀνεκδιήγητος, 2 Cor. ix. 15,—appnzos, 2 Cor. xii. 4,—avexAdAnrtos, 1 Pet. i. 8 (Thol.). Macedonius gathered from this verse that the Holy Spirit is ὦ crea- ture, and inferior to God, because He prays to God for us. But as Aug. Tract. vi. in Joan. 2, vol. iii. p. 1425, remarks, ‘non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso apud semetipsum in illa Trinitate gemit, sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit.’ intercession in heaven is here spoken of, but a pleading im us by the indwelling Spirit, of a nature above our comprehension and utterance. 27.| But (opposed to ἀλαλήτοι---- though unutterable by us’) He who searcheth the hearts (God) know- eth what is the mind (intent, or bent, as hidden in those sighs) of the Spirit. A difficulty presents itself in the rendering of the next clause. If ὅτε be causal, because ‘He (the Spirit) pleads for the saints ac- cording to the will of God, it would seem that οἶδεν must bear the meaning ‘ ap- proves, otherwise the connexion will not be apparent; and so Calv. and Riickert have rendered it. Hence Grot., Reiche, Meyer, Fritz. render ὅτι, ‘that, and construe,— No. a) a Corsn. 10. 1 Pet. i. 1]. Rev. li. 23 only. Prov. xx. 27. t vv. 6,7 reff. w ch. i. 7 al. fr. Acts ix. 13 reff. 1 Cor. xvi. 16. 2 Cor. vi.l. James ii. 22 only+. Esdr. UTEPEVTUY XGVEL ‘knows what is the mind of the Spirit, — that He pleads with God (so Reiche and Fritz., and Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 49. ἃ, for κατὰ 6.) for the saints : justifying the repetition of θεόν, implied before, by 1 John iv. 8, 6 μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν θεόν, ὅτι 6 θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν. But I must confess that the other rendering seems to me better to suit the context: and I do not see that the or- dinary meaning of οἶδεν need be changed. The assurance which we have that God the Heart-Searcher interprets the inarticulate sighings of the Spirit in us, is,—not strictly speaking, His Omniscience,—but the fact that the very Spirit who thus pleads, does it κατὰ Oedv,—in pursuance of the divine purposes and in conformity with God’s good pleasure. So that, as its place before the verb would suggest, κατὰ θεόν is emphatic, and furnishes the reason of the οἶδεν. A minor objection against the explicative ὅτε is, that we have οἴδαμεν ὅτε immediately following. All these pleadings of the Spirit are heard and answered, even when tnarticulately uttered ; we may extend the same comforting assurance to the imper- fect and mistaken verbal utteranees of our prayers, which are not themselves answered to our hurt, but the answer is given to the voice of the Spirit which speaks through them, which we would ex- press, but cannot. Compare 2 Cor. xii. 7—10, for an instance in the Apostle’s own case. 28. | Having given an example, in prayer, how the Spirit helps our weak- ness, and out of our ignorance and discou- ragement brings from God an answer of peace, he now extends this to all things— all circumstances by which the Christian finds himself surrounded. ‘These may seem calculated to dash down hope, and surpass patience ; but we know better concerning them. But (the opposition seems most naturally to apply to ver. 22, the groaning and travailing of all creation) we know (as a point of the assurance of faith) that to those who love God (a stronger desig- nation than any yet used for believers) all things (every event of life, but especially, as the context requires, those which are ad- verse. To include, with Aug. de Corrept. et Grat., 6. ix. (24), vol. x. pt. 1. p. 930, the sins of believers in this πάντα, ἃ5 making them ‘humiliores et doctiores,’ is manifestly to introduce an element which did not enter 998 » > / ~ z=ch.xiiié ἜΣ εἰς Τ ἀγαθόν, τοῖς rer. a Acts xxvii. 13 reff. b ch. i. 7 al. e ch. xi. 2. d 1 Cor. ii. 7 reff. ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. VIII. κατὰ “πρόθεσιν ὃ κλητοῖς οὖσιν. 29 ὅτι ods “ προέγνω, καὶ “ προώρισεν © συμμόρφους τῆς Acts xxvi. 5. 1 Pet. i. 20. 2 Pet.iii. 17 only+. Wisd. vi. 13. viii. 8. xviii. 6. (-yvwous, Acts ii. 23.) e Phil. iii. 21 only +. (-φέζεσθαι, Phil. iii. 10.) 28. *aft συνεργει ins ὁ θεὸς AB (Orig, [eth]): om CDFKL{PN] rel vulg [syrr copt arm] Clem, Orig,{int, Eus, Cyr-c,} (Cyr-jer,) Chr, Thdrt (Ee ΤῊ] Lucif, Ambr AUg{szpe}- ins to bef αγαθον 1, ἃ f k 48. 57. 72-3-4. 109-77 lectt-8-13 Clem, Orig, Cyr-jer, Chr-ms [Ephr, Thdrt-txt Antch, ] ΤῊ]. into the Apostle’s consideration; for he is here already viewing the believer as justified by faith, dwelt in by the Spirit, dead to sin) work together (συνεργεῖ, absolute, or ἀλλήλοις implied: not, ‘work together for good with those who love God, —‘ loving God’ being a ‘ working for good :’ which, though upheld by Thol., seems to me harsh, and inconsistent with the emphatic position of τοῖς ay. τ. 0. Surely also in that case πάντα would have been ta πάντα, all things, as one party working, set over against of aya- πῶντες τ. θ., the other party working: whereas πάντα συνεργεῖ gives rather the sense of all things co-operating one with another. If the reading of AB be adopted, we should understand either (1) that God causeth all things to work, ἄς. : taking συνέργει as from συνέργω, con- cludo: or (2) that, as Syr. renders it, “ia every thing He helpeth them for good.” But in this last case, we should require 7a πάντα) for (towards, to bring about) good {their eternal welfare ;—the fulfilment of the purpose of the ἀγάπη τ. θεοῦ ἡ ἐν χριστῷ ᾿Ἰησοῦ τ. κυρ. ἡμῶν, ver. 39),—to those who are called (not only invited, but effectually called—see below) according to (His) purpose. In this further descrip- tion the Apostle designates the believers as not merely loving God, but being be- loved by God. ‘he divine side of their security from harm is brought out, as combining with and ensuring the other. They are sure that all things work for their good, not only because they love Him who worketh all things, but also because He who worketh all things hath loved and chosen them, and carried them through the successive steps of their spiritual life. The calling here and elsewhere spoken of by the Apostle (compare especially ch. ix. 11) is the working, in men, of “the everlasting purpose of God whereby before the founda- tions of the world were laid, He hath de- creed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from eurse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting sal- vation.” Art. X. of the Church of England. To specify the various ways in which this calling has been understood, would far ex- ceed the limits of a general commentary. It may suffice to say, that on the one hand, Scripture bears constant testimony to the fact that all believers are chosen and called by God,—their whole spiritual life in its origin, progress, andcompletion, be.ng from Him :—while on the other land its testi- mony is no less precise that He willeth all to be saved, and that none shall perish except by wilful rejection of the truth. So that, on the one side, GOD’s SOVEREIGNTY, —on the other, MAN’S FREE WILL,—is plainly declared to us. To receive, believe, and act on both these, is our duty, and our wisdom. They belong, as truths, no less to natural than to revealed religion: and every one who. believes in a God must acknowledge both. But all attempts to bridge over the gulf between the two are JSutile in the present imperfect condition of man. The very reasonings used for this purpose are clothed in la framed on the analogies of this lower world, and wholly inadequate to describe God regarded as He is in Himself. Hence arises confusion, mis- apprehension of God, and unbelief. I have therefore simply, in this commentary, en- deavoured to enter into the full meaning of the sacred text, whenever one or other of these great truths is brought forward ; not explaining either of them away on account of possible difficulties arising from the re- cognition of the other, but recognizing as fully the elective and predestinating decree of God where it is treated of, as I have done, in other places, the free will of man. If there be an inconsistency in this course, it is at least one in which the nature of things, the conditions of human thought, and Scripture itself, participate, and from which no Commentator that I have seen, however anxious to avoid it by extreme views one way or the other, has been able ‘to escape. See, for a full treatment of the subject, Tholuck’s Comm. in loc. 29, 30.] The Apostle now goes backward from κλητοῖς, to explain how this CALLING came about. It sprung from God’s fore- knowledge, co-ordinate with His fore-deter- mination of certain persons (to be) con- formed to the image of His Son, that Christ might be exalted as the Head of the great Family of God. These persons, thus foreknown and predetermined, He, in the course of His Providence actually, but 29—32. f = ΄ A can > - g » \ 3 > \ n s elLKOVOS TOV υἱου AUTOD, εἰς TO ElLVaAL AUTOV TT pWTO- Toxov ἐν ἱπολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. 7, δ᾽ ΣᾺ aN ᾿ \ A k 2 7, ΄, \ πουτοὺς Kal εκωαλέσεν" καὶ OUS ἐκάλεσεν, TOUTOUS καὶ al. ] ὃ 7 Ε ἃ δὲ l ὃ / ΄ Ἢ m > , EOLKALWOEV* OUS OE “ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ™ ἐδόξασεν. 81 aT; Ss n2 -“ \ a > ς \ e \ ¢ A L οὖν "ἐροῦμεν πρὸς ταῦτα; εἰ ὁ θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, 7 ο θ᾽ ς al a 32 Ο cal af cr > ᾽ / τίς “καθ ἡμῶν; °~ OS γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ P ἐφείσατο, i Matt.xx.28. Heb. ii. 10. ix. 28. . 1 ch. ii. 18 reff. passim. Ofwus, here only. see Esther iii. 1. vi. 6, 7. iv. 4 al. v.8. Eph.iv.1. 2 Thess. ii. 14 al. xii. 30. Gal. 111. 21. v. 23. 30. for προωρισεν, mpoeyyw A | Orig-int, 1. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 399 f Matt. xxii. A ᾿ F 201}. ch. i 30 ods δὲ 4arpowpicev, %-,15% 26. 27. g ch. iv. 11 reff. h Luke ii. 7. Col. i. 15, 18. k = ch.ix.11. 1Cor. vii.15. Gal. _m = (of Christ), John vii. 39 and n ch. iii. ὃ reff. o = Matt. p ch, xi. 31 reff. Gen. xxii. 16. kat ous εδικ. A eth [ Syr Orig-int, ]. 32. os ovde viov ἰδιου εφεισ. F ; os (add ye D3) ovde του ιδιου viov εφεισ. Ὁ, in His eternal decree implicitly, called, bringing them through justification to glory ;—and all this is spoken of as past, because to Him who sees the end from the beginning,— past, present, and future ARE Not, but ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED WHEN DETERMINED. Because whom He fore- knew (but in what sense? This has been much disputed: the Pelagian view,—‘ eos quos presciverat credituros, is taken by Orig., Chrys., @c., Theophyl., Augustine {prop. 55, in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2076), Ambr., Erasm. in paraphrase, Calov., Reiche, Meyer, Neander, and others; the sense of fore-loved, by Erasm. in commen- tary, Grotius, Estius, the Schmidts, &c.: that of fore-decreed, by Thol. edn. 1, and Stuart,—which however Thol. in subse- quent editions suspects to be ungram- matical without some infinitive following, and prefers a sense combining foreknow- ledge and recognition-as-His:—that of elected, adopted as His sons, by Calvin,— ‘Dei autem precognitio, cujus hic Paulus meminit, non nuda est prescientia, ut stulte fingunt quidam imperiti, sed adop- tio qua filios suos ab improbis semper dis- crevit,’—Riuckert, De Wette, al. That this latter is implied, is certain: but 1 prefer taking the word in the ordinary sense of foreknew, especially as it is guarded from being a ‘nuda prescientia’ by what fol- lows: see below and Gal. iv. 9), He also fore-ordained (His foreknowledge was not a mere being previously aware how a series of events would happen: but. was co-ordi- nate with, and inseparable from, His having pre-ordained all things) conformed (i.e. to be conformed) to the image of His Son (the dat. and gen. are both found after words like σύμμορφος ; compare σύμφυτος, ch. vi. 5. The mage of Christ here spoken of is not His moral purity, nor His sufferings, but as in 1 Cor. xv. 49, that en- tire form, of glorification in body and sanc- tification in spirit, of which Christ is the perfect pattern, and all His people shall be partakers. Toaccomplish this transforma- tion in us is the end, as regards us, of our election by God; not merely to rescue us from wrath. Compare 1 John iii. 2, 3; Phil. 111. 21: and on the comprehensive meaning of μορφή, Phil. ii. 6, 7,—where it expresses both ‘ the form of God’ in which Christ was, and ‘the form of a servant’ in which He became incarnate), that He might (or may, as Calv., but the refer- ence in the aorist is to the past decree of God) be firstborn among many brethren (i. 6. that He might be shewn, acknow- ledged to be, and glorified as THE SON ΟΕ GoD, pre-eminent among those who are by adoption through Him the sons of God. This is the further end of our election, as regards Christ : His glorification in us, as our elder Brother and Head): 980.7 but whom He fore-ordained, those he also called (in making the decree, He left it not barren, but provided for those circum- stances, all at His disposal, by which such decree should be made effectual in them. ἐκάλεσεν, supply, eis τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν 1 Thess. ii. 12; other expressions are found in 1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 1 Pet. v. 10): and whom He called, these He also justified (the Apostle, remember, is speak- ing entirely of God's acts on behalf of the believer : he says nothing zow of that faith, through which this justification is, on his part, obtained): but whom He justified, them He also glorified (He did not merely, in His premundane decree, acquit them of sin, but also clothe them with glory: the aorist ἐδόξασεν being used, as the other aorists, to imply the completion in the divine counsel of all these, which are to us, in the state of time, so many successive steps,—simultaneously and irrevocably. So we have the perfect in John xvii. 10, 22). 381—39.] The Christian has no reason to fear, but all reason to hope; Sor nothing can separate him from God's love in Christ. 81.) What then shall we say to these things what answer can the hesitating or discouraged find to this array of the merciful acts of God’s love on behalf of the believer)? If God is for us (and this He has been proved to be, vv. 28—30,-——in having foreknown, predesti- 400 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. ΥΠΙ|Ι. > A ς \ ς a ΄ q , 9 ; aA > «το τ ἤν ἀλλὰ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων ἃ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν, πῶς οὐχ Acts xxy. ll, ; 16. ᾿ 1 Cor. ii. καὶ 12. 2Cor. ii. 1. 10 al.t \ thee \ ΄ ΝᾺ ἋΣ / 0m Yi pits συν avUTwW TA TAVTA μιν XaAPloeT atl ; τις y= 7 \ lal an \ [ὦ ᾽ nr i. 7 Walt καλέσει κατὰ “ ἐκλεκτῶν ἃ θεοῦ ; θεὸς ὁ " δικαιῶν ; 53 τίς Γ. θεοῦ lii. 33. ΄ s Acts xix. 38 Oo a / \ e , A . “ κατακρίνων ; χριστὸς ὁ ἀποθανών, * μᾶλλον δὲ [καὶ] ΑΒΟΡΕ be ae pia fae ΙΝ mle, ται Bae 5. ὃ ΕΣ ae here only. Υ̓͂ ὀγερθείς, ὃς καὶ ἔστιν “ἐν “ δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ edfeh loct. 328 mn . Isa. xxviii. 16. u Col. iii. 12. Tit. i. 1. gen., ch. i. 6, 7. ν ver. 30. w Matt. xxvii. 8. (John viii. 10, 11.) ch. ii. Lal. Esth. ii. 1. x = Gal. iv.9. Eph. iv. 28. v. 1}. y ver. 1]. z = Eph.i. 20. Col. iii. 1. Heb. i. 3. viii. 1. x. 12. xii. 2.’ 1 Pet. iii. 22 only. Ps. xv. 1, a = and w. ὑπέρ. Heb. vii. 25. (Acts xxv. 24 reff.) b Matt. xix. 6. Ezek. xlvi. 19. w. ἀπό, ver. 39. Heb. vii. 26. Wisd. i. 3. (adda, so BD!FR.) om ta DIF [arm]. 84. aft χριστὸς ins τἡσους ACFLN 17 vulg copt eth arm Did, Cyr[-p] Damase [Orig-int,] Aug, Maximin,: om BDK rel syrr Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt {Euthal-ms Iren- int, Hil, }. rec ins Ist «a, with DFKL rel latt(but not am!) [Syr(omg μαλλον de) ] syr Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt, Iren-int Hil, Ambr Aug Maximin: om ABCN g k117 copt [ath arm] Did, Damase [ Orig-int,]. (καὶ is left out in B ed Mai, as in Tisehdf and in the collations of Btly and Bch; but Mai has got into some confusion with re- gard to Bch’s reading.) aft eyep9. add ex vexpwy ACR'(om N3?) 17 copt eth[ (‘ut solet,” Tischdf) Did,] Chr, Damasc. om ka (bef ἐστιν) ACR' beo [47] vulg D!-lat copt [goth] Cyr-jer Did, Chr, Cyr[-p, Damase] Thdrt Iren-int, [ Orig- int, Hil, Ambr, Aug, |: ins B D[and lat?] FKLN* am harl? syrr @e ΤῺ] Maximin, Ambrst. om του Bo. 35. aft τις ins ovy F latt(not am) [arm Orig-int,)insgepe). (txtsxpe)- | nated, called, justified, glorified us), who (is) against us? $2.] (God) Who even (taking one act as a notable example out of all) did not spare His own Son (His OWN,— His υἱὸς: μονογενής, the only one of God’s sons who is One with Him in nature and essence, begotten of Him before all worlds. No other sense of ἰδίου will suit its position here, in a clause already made emphatic by ‘ye, in consequence of which whatever epithet is fixed to υἱοῦ must par- take of the emphasis), but delivered Him up (not necessarily εἰς θάνατον only, but generally, as ἔδωκεν, John iii. 16: ‘largitus est, quem sibi retinere poterat,’ as Tho- luck, from Winer) on behalf of us all (so that every one of us believers, even the most afflicted, has an equal part in Him. Of others, nothing is said here), how shall He not (how can it be that He will not) also with Him (in consequence of and in analogy with this His greatest gift: it is a question ‘a majori ad minus’) give freely to us all things (all that we need or hope for; or even more largely, all created things for ours, to subserve our good, and work together for us: compare 1 Cor. iii. 22)? 33.] The punctua- tion of these verses is disputed. Many (Aug., Ambr., Reiche, Kollner, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette, and Griesb., Knapp, Lachmann) follow, in vv. 33, 34, the un- doubted form of ver. 35, and piace an in- terrogation after each, clause, as in the text; while Luther, Beza, Grot., Wolf, Tholuck, al., make θεὸς 6 δικ. and χριστὸς ὁ ἀποθ. x.7.A. the reply to and rejection of xwpon A c Orig, the questions preceding them. The former method is preferable, as preserving the form of ver. 35, and involving no harshness of con- struction, which the other does, in the case οἵ χριστός followed by the two participles. Who shall lay (τι) any charge against the elect of God (ἐγκαλέω usually with a dat. see reff.)? Shall God (ἐγκαλέσει), who justifies them (Chrys. strikingly says, οὐκ εἶπε “Oeds ὁ ἀφεὶς ἁμαρτήματα," ἀλλ᾽ ὃ πολλῷ μεῖζον ἣν θεὸς 6 δικαιῶν. ὅταν yap ἡ τοῦ δικαστοῦ ψῆφος δίκαιον ἀἄπο- φήνῃ, καὶ δικαστοῦ τοιούτου, τίνος ἄξιος ὃ κατηγορῶν ; Hom. xv. p. 597): Who is he that condemns them (the pres. part. as expressing the official employment, ‘is their accuser,’ is better than the fut., as cor- responding more closely with δικαιῶν) (18 it) Christ who died, yea who rather is also risen, who also is at‘he right hand of God, who also intercedes forus? “Allthe great points of our redemption are ranged together, from the death of Christ to His still enduring intercession, as reasons for negativing the question above.” De W. 35.] Who (i. e. what: but masc. for uniformity with vv. 33, 34) shall se- parate us from the love of Christ? Is this (1) our love to Christ, or (2) Christ's love to us, or (3) owr sense of Christ's love to us? The first of these is held by Origen, Chrys., Theodoret, Ambr., Erasm., al. But the difficulty of it lies in consistently inter- preting ver. 37, where not our endurance in. love to Him, but our victory by means of His love to us, is alleged. And besides, it militates against the conclusion in ver. 39, 7 [47] ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. 40] ᾽ / A Lal Lal ἀγάπης τοῦ χριστοῦ ; ° θλῖψις ἢ © στενοχωρία ἢ “ διωγμὸς - eh. ii. 9(rett, ; A i " A ' Jor. xii. 10 ἡ “ λιμὸς ἢ ᾿γυμνότης ἢ 8 κίνδυνος ἢ ἃ μάχαιρα; 36 καθὼς τοῦ. σοι. ; ᾿ oe x ig , θ o \ ἘΠ xi. 27 only. γέγραπται ὅτι ἕνεκεν σοῦ ᾿ θανατούμεθα ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν, AetsxiWal. f 2.Cor: xi. 27. kl > / ] e / m nr 37 > > 5 / FE 7 ᾿ ~ Rev. iii. 18 ἐλογίσθημεν ὡς όβατα. σφαγῆς ἱ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν sot τ Ὁ τοις πᾶσιν " ὑπερνικῶμεν διὰ τοῦ “5 ἀγαπήσαντος ° ἡμᾶς. ται 48 38 Ρ , \ a ” q θ , ” q , ΗΝ 2 Cor. xi. 26 πέπεισμαι γὰρ OTL οὔτε «θάνατος οὔτε “ ζωή, οὔτε (ὃ πε) aryryen, A Ee ee. O52 5 ἥτε αἱ μέλλ αὶ τ τε ἄγγελοι οὔτε " ἀρχαί, οὔτε “" ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε % μέλλοντα, “δ og Jer. ix. 10. 2 Cor. x.2. Job xli. 20. n here only +. acc. and inf., r = (see note) 1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph.i.2lai. Dan. t Acts xxiv. 25 reff. ich. vil. 4 reff. Psa. xliii. 22. k = ch. ix. 8 reff. 11 Cor. iv. 1. m Acts viii. 32. James v. 5 only. 1.c. Isa. xxxiv. 2,6. gen., Zech. xi. 4. o of Christ, Gal. v. 20. Eph. v. 2. p constr., ch. xiv. 14. xv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 5, 12. 2 Mace. ix. 27. q so 1 Cor. iii. 22. vii. 27 Theod. 8 = 1 Cor. vii. 26 reff. for χριστου, θεου B([adding] της ev χριστου ιησουὴ ὃὲ a! [Cyr-p,(txt,) ]. om 2nd 7 D}(and lat!) F-gr]. 36. rec evexa (so LXX-B), with CK [Ephr, Bas,] Thdrt Damasc ΤῊ] (c: txt (so Lxx-A®) ABDFL® m n 17 [47] Clem, Orig, Meth, Chr,. 87. τὸν αγαπησαντα DF latt [Tert, Cypr, Hil, Lucif,]. 38. ayyeAos DF [copt] Aug, Ambrst: not Hil, Augszpe- aft ovre apya add ovte εξουσιαι (see Col ii. 15 al) C f n 46. 73. 80. 109-21 syr-w-ast (Bas, Antch, | : pref, Di not D!-lat]}. rec ovte duvauets bef ovte ενεστωτα o. μ., with KL rel vulg{-ed demid harl?] Syr goth Chr, Thdrt, (Εο Thl Aug: txt ABCDFX m [47 am fuld harl'] tol syr copt [ath arm-zoh | Kus, Ephr, Cyr[-p, | Damase Orig[ -intszpe | lat-ff (our. duv. has been suspected as spurious (Fritz., Tholuck, in De Wette): but no mss omit it, unless (appy) {116 ](Mét) and [ Clem, Antch, Orig-int, and] one or two lat-ff who have ouvte εξουσιαι). which ought certainly to respond to this question. The third meaning is defended by Calvin. But the second, as maintained by Beza, Grot., Est., al., Thol., Reiche, Meyer, De Wette, appears to me the only tenable sense of the words. For, having shewn that God’s great love to us is such that none can accuse nor harm us, the Apos- tle now asserts the permanence of that love under all adverse cireumstances— that none such’ ean affect it,—nay more, that it is by that love that we are enablea to obtain the victory over allsuch adversities. And finally he expresses his persuasion that no created thing shall ever separate us from that love, i.e. shall ever be able to pluck us out of the Father’s hand. 36. | The quotation here expresses,—‘ all which things befall us, as they befell God’s saints of old,—and it is no new trials to which we are subjected :— What, if we verify the an- cient description ?’ 87.) But (ne- gation of the question θλῖψις... . μάχαι- pa;) in all these things we are far the conquerors (hardly, ‘more than conque- rors :’ the ὑπέρ intensifies the degree of νικᾷν, as in ὑπερπερισσεύειν and the like, but does not express a superiority over νικᾷν) through Him who loved us (i.e. so far from all these things separating us from His love, that very love has given us a glorious victory over them). The reading διὰ τὸν ἀγαπήσαντα ἡμᾶς would amount to the same in meaning :— ‘on account of Him who loved us’ im- Vous LE plying, as in vv. 11, 20, that He is the. efficient cause of the result. It is doubted whether ‘He who loved us’ be the Father, or our Lord Jesus Christ. This is, I think, decided by τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς Kal λούσαντι ἡμᾶς .... ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, Rev. i. 5. The use of such an ex- pression as a title of our Lord in a doxo- logy, makes it very probable that where unexplained, as here, it would also desig- nate Him. 38.] For I am per- suaded (a taking up and amplifying of the ὑπερνικῶμεν --τΟῸ victory is not only over these things, but Idare assert it over greater and more awful than these) that neither death, nor life (well explained by De W. as the two principal possible states of man, and not as = ‘any thing dead or living,’ as Calvin and Koppe), nor angels, nor principalities (whether good or bad; ἀρχή is used of good, Col.i. 16; ii. 15 (see note) ; of bad (1 Cor. xv. 24 ?), Eph. vi. 12; here, as Eph. i. 21, generally. ἄγγελοι, abso- lutely, seems never to be used of bad angels: if it here means good angels, there is no ob- jection, as Stuart alleges, to the rhetorical supposition that they might attempt this separation, any more than to that of an angel from heaven preaching another gospel, Gal. i. 8), nor things present nor things to come (no vicissitudes of ‘7me), nor powers (some confusion has evidently crept into the arrangement. Ephr. Syr. reads, οὔτ. ἀρχαὶ οὔτ. ἐξουσίαι οὔτ. ἐνεστ. οὔτ. μέλλ. οὔτ. δυνάμεις οὔτ. ἄγγελοι; ἶ ἢν 402 ΤΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. VIII. 39. ῇ , ὦ / / ” cea, οὔτε ἃ δυνάμεις, 39 οὔτε "ὕψωμα οὔτε * βάθος, οὔτε Tis v. 29 Il. J , , e “ \ an ΄ ΡΟΣ ii.22. X κτίσις Y ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς ξ χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς * ἀγά- Isa. xxxiv. 4. : ry 2 Cc res Aa An - "» a? r a / € aA »2Cors 3 πῆς τοῦ " θεοῦ τῆς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν. iv. 24. ΕΣ , , b) A b 7 judithxa. = ΙΧ 10 Αλήθειαν λέγω “ἐν χριστῷ, ov “ ψεύδομαι, «ἘΠ Ως is al. Tea. vii 1. LX Zhe i 25. (ve. 19, &e.) Heb. iv. 13. Judith ix. 12. 5 at iii. 9. Ἷ «1. 10. z ver. 30. a - ch. v.5. 2 Cor. xii. 18, = or. aa 6. Eph. iv. 25. Ps. xiv. 2. ce = 2Cor. xii. 19. Eph. iv. 17. ἃ 2 Cor. xi. δι. Gal. i.20. 1 Tim. ii. 7. 39. om tis DF latt syrr [copt goth eth Orig,(txt,)-int,(txt,) Tert, Hil, Ambrst Augsepe }- του kupiov AC ΕἾ -gr }. Basil, οὔτε &yy. οὔτ. apx. οὔτ. ἐξουσ. οὔτ. δυνάμεις οὔτ. ἐνεστ. οὔτ. μέλλ. I follow, with Griesb., Lachm., Tischdf., the very strong consent of the ancient Mss.), nor height nor depth (no extremes of space), nor any other created thing (κτίσις can- not here be the whole creation, as Chrys., — λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν εἰ καὶ ἄλλη τυσαύτη κτίσις ἦν ὅση ἡ ὁρωμένη, ὅση 7 νοητή, οὐδὲν ἄν με τῆς ἀγάπης ἐκείνης améoTnoe,—but any creature, such as are all the things named) shall be able to sever us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (here plainly enough God’s love to us in Christ,—to us, as we are in Christ, to us, manifested in and by Christ). Cnap. IX.—XI.] The Gospel being now . established, in its fulness and freeness, as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,—a question naturally arises, not unaccompanied with painful dif- ficulty, respecting the exclusion of that people, as a people, to whom God’s ancient promises were made. With this national rejection of Israel the Apostle now deals: first (ix. 1—5) expressing his deep sym- pathy with his own people: then (vv. 6—29) justifying God, Who has not (vv. 6—13) broken His promise, but from the first chose a portion only of Abraham’s seed, and that (vv. 14--29) by His un- doubted elective right, not to be murmured at nor disputed by us His creatures: ac- cording to which election a remnant shall now also be saved. ‘Then, as to the rejec- tion of so large a portion of Israel, their own self-righteousness (vv. 30—33) has been the cause of it,and (x. 1—12) their ig- norance of God’s righteousness,—notwith- standing that (vv.13 —21)their Scriptures plainly declared to them the nature of the Gospel, and its results with regard to themselves and the Gentiles, with which declarations Paul’s preaching was in per- fiet accordance. Has God then east off his people (xi. 1—10) 7 No—for a rem- nant shall be saved according to the elec- tion of grace, but the rest hardened, not however for the purpose of their destruc- tion, aut (xi. 11—24) of mercy to the Gentiles: which purpose of mercy being Sulfilled, Israel sha?l be brought in again to its proper place of blessing (xi, 25—32). He concludes the whole with @ humble admiration of the unsearchable depth of God's ways, and the riches of His Wisdom (xi. 33—36). In no part of the Epistles of Paul is it more requisite than in this portion, to bear in mind his habit of INSULATING the one view of the subject under consideration, with which he is at the time dealiny. The divine side of the history of Israel and the world is in the greater part of this portion thus insulated: the facts of the divine dealings and the divine decrees insisted on, and the mundane or human side of that history kept for the most part out of sight, and only so much shewn, as to make it manifest that the Jews, on their part, failed of attaining God’s righteousness, and so lost their share in the Gospel. It must also be remembered, that, what- ever inferences, with regard to God’s dis- posal of individuals, may justly lie from the Apostle’s arguments, the assertions here made by him are universally spoken with a national reference. Of the eternal salva- tion or rejection of any individual Jew there is here no question: and however logically true of any individual the same conclusion may be shewn to be, we know as matter of fact, that in such cases not the divine, but the human side, is that ever held up by the Apostle—the universality of free grace for all—the riches of God’s mercy to all who call on Him, and consequent exhortations to all, to look to Him and be saved. De Wette has well shewn, against Reiche and others, that the apparent inconsistencies of the Apostle, at one time speaking of ab- solute decrees of God, and at another of cul- pability in man,—at.one time of the elec- tion of some, at another of a hope of the conversion of all,—resolve themselves into the necessary conditions of thought under which we all are placed, being compelled to acknowledge the divine Sovereignty on the one hand, and human free will on the other, and alternately appearing to iose sight of one of these, as often as for the time we confine our view to the other. Ὁ 1X.1—5.] The Apostle’s deep sympathy a ee IX. 1—3. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 408 ᾿συμμαβο μοι σῇ: μοι τῆς συνειδήσεώς μου ἐν πνεύματι eens ig / ἁγίῳ, 3 ὅτε λύπη μοί = μεγάλη καὶ 58 ἀδιάλειπτος “5 Ser 12 Ω 7 g2 Tim. i. 3 h ὀδύνη τῇ καρδίᾳ pov. ὃ Ἰηὐχόμην yap * ἀνάθεμα εἶναι only +, (τως, > \ \ rn A \ n n ch. i. 9. αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ᾿ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου, »1 Tim. v.10 viii, 18. i Acts xxvii. 29 reff. imperf., = Acts xxv. 22 reff. k Acts xxiii. ii. 1 Cor. xii. 3. xvi. 22. Gal. i.8,9 only. Deut. vii. 26. = ch. vii. 2. 2 Cor. xi. 3. Col. ii. 20. 2 Thess. i. 9. Cuap. IX. 1. aft xpiorw add imoov D![and lat] F [arm-mss Orig- -int,(om,)] Ps- Ath, Ambrst. for 2nd ev, συν F[-gr]. 2. της καρδιας Καὶ 17. 2191. 3. evxxouny DKL ck 1n 17 [Orig-c,] Thdrt-ms: evyoua 41. εἰναι bef avabeua X. rec autos eyw bef αναθεμα εἰναι, with CKL rel vss [Orig-c, -int,} Ath, Thdrt [ Damasc]} Cypr,: txt ABDF(X) syr goth Chr, [Orig-int,] Ambr, Pac,. υπὸ DG. with his own people Israel. The subject ἐνεδέχετο, Phot. The sense of the imperf. ou which he is about to enter, so unwel- in such expressions is the proper and strict come to Jews in general, coupled with their one (and no new discovery, but common hostility to himself, and designation of him enough in every schoolboy’s reading): the as a πλάνος (2 Cor. vi. 8: compare also act is unfinished, an obstacle intervening. 2 Cor. i. 17; 11. 17; iv. 1, 2; vii. 2 al.), So in Latin, ‘faciebam, ni... ,’ the com- causes him to begin with a mpotapaitnois pleted sentence being, ‘ faciebam, et per- or deprecation, bespeaking credit for sim- fecissem, ni.. .’) that I myself (on αὐτὸς plicity and earnestness in the assertion ἐγώ see ch. vii. 25; it gives emphasis, as which is to follow. This deprecation and ἐγὼ Παῦλος, [2 Cor. x. 1] Gal. v. 2: “1, assertion of sympathy he puts in the fore- the very person who write this and whom front of the section, to take at once the ye know”) were a curse (a thing accursed, ground from those who might charge him, ἀνάθεμα in the LXX = 077, an irrevocable in the conduct of his argument, with devotion to God, or, a thing or person so hostility to his own alienated people. devoted. All persons and animals thus I say (the) truth in Christ (as a Christian, devoted were put to death; none could be —as united to Christ ; the ordinary sense redeemed, Levit. xxvii. 28, 29.. The sub- of the expression ἐν χριστῷ, so frequent sequent scriptural usage of the word with the Apostle. It is not an oath, arose from this. It never denotes simply ‘by Christ,—for though ἐν with ὄμνυμι an exclusion or excommunication, but bears this meaning, we have no instance always devotion to perdition,—a curse. of it where the verb is not expressed),—I Attempts have been made to explain away lie not (confirmation of the preceding, by the meaning here, by understanding ex- shewing that he was aware of what would communication, as Grot., Hammond, Le be laid to his charge, and distinctly re-.. Clene; &e. ; or even natural death only, pudiating it),—my conscience bearing as Jerome, al.: but excommunication in- me witness of the same (the σύν in com- cluded cursing and delivering over to position, as in reff., denoting accordance Satan:—and the mere wish for natural with the fact, not joint testimony ) in the death would, as Chrys. eloquently re- Holy Spirit (much as ἐν χριστῷ above:— marks, be altogether beneath the dignity a conscience not left to itself but informed of the passage. Perhaps the strangest and enlightened by the Spirit of God. interpretation is that of Dr. Burton: “St. Str angely enough, Griesb., Knapp, and Paul had been set apart and consecrated Koppe take these words alas for a formula by Christ to His service; and he had jurandi, and connect them with od petdo- prayed that this devotion of himself might μαι), that (not because, or for, as Bengel: be for the good of his countrymen :”—it ὅτι, as in 2 Cor. xi. 10, introducing the js however no unfair sample of a multitude matter to which the asseveration was di- of others, all more or less shrinking from rected,—I say the truth, when I say, that the full meaning of the fervid words of - +) I have great sorrow and unceasing the Apostle) from Christ (1, 6. cut off and anguish i in my heart. The reason of this | separated from Him for ever in eternal grief is reserved for a yet stronger descrip- perdition. No other meaning will satisfy tion of his sympathy in the next verse. the plain sense of the words. ἀπό in the 8.1 For I could wish (the imperf. is not sense of ὑπό, making Christ the agent of historical, alluding to his days of Phari- the curse, would be hardly admissible: saism, as Pelag. and others, but quas7- 501] less the joining,—as Carpzov and optative, as in reff. ‘I was wishing, had Elsner,—ard with ηὐχόμην. On this it been possible,—nvxounv ei ἐνεχώρει, ef wish, compare Exod. xxxii. 32) in behalf : bp2 404 m = ch. xvi. 7, ἄς. (32) Levit. xxy. 45. n ch. i. 3 reff. o = Actsx.41 Ὁ reff. “ p ch. vill. eff. q = Heb. ix. 5. Exod. xl. 34. W 3 Kings viii. 11 τ = Acts iii. 25. vii. 8. Heb. passim. (plur., Gal. iv. 24. Eph. ii. 12 only.) Gen. xvii. 2 al. only+. 2 Mace. vi. 23 only. (-θετεῖν, Heb. vii. 11. 1. Heb. ix.1,6 only. Exod. xii. 25, 26. ᾿ Acts vii. 19 reff. w = Eph. iv. 6 al. y (see note.) as above (x). Mark xiv. 61. Luke 1. 68. om adeAg. μ. των Bins B?-marg(see table). ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOT:. 2 Cor. i. 3. IX. ad m “ n \ n / 4. ΠῚ “ / » τ τῶν ™ συγγενῶν μου " κατὰ " σάρκα, * ° οἵτινές εἰσιν ἴσρα- A - ς e / \ ς ᾽ \ e ηλῖται, ὧν ἡ Ὁ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ “ δόξα καὶ αἱ : διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ "νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ ' λατρεία καὶ αἱ " ἐπαγγελίαι, ὃ ὧν 017 [47 e a ¢ \ \ \ / gk ut οἱ ᾿ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ " κατὰ " σάρκα, ὁ ὧν ΄ \ ‘ \ 5». ΄ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς *¥ εὐλογητὸς * εἰς τοὺς * αἰῶνας, ἀμην. --αμην s here «τῆς, James iv, 12.) t John xvi. 2. eh. xii. usee ch. iv. 13, xv. 8. Gal. iii. 16. “vabsol., x ch. i. 25. 2 Cor. xi. 3]. Ps. lxxxviii. 52. Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3 only. om 2nd μον D! ΒΤ -gr goth Chr, Ambr, Aug, ]: add toy DF a? Syr Cyr{-p, Bas-2-mss, | ‘Thdrt. 4. om wy 7 vi0d. to επαγγελίιαι A: om καὶ αἱ διαθ. K. ἡ νομοθ. L. ἢ διαθηκη BD F[-gr vulg-clem] demid harl? [wth Ps-]Ath Chr-mss Cypr, Jer, Sedul: txt CKR rel latt (inelg am harl! tol) syrr copt goth [arm] Epiph, Chr, ‘Thdrt Phot, [Euthal-ms Damase Orig-int,] Hil, [Ambrst Augy]. 5. om οἱ F. Aug). of (in the place of; or, if thus I could be- nefit, deliver from perdition) my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. The wish is evidently not to be pressed as entailing on the Apostle the charge of in- consistency in loving his nation more than his Saviour. It is the expression of an affectionate and self-denying heart, willing to surrender all things, even, if it might be so, eternal glory itself, if thereby he could obtain for his beloved people those blessings of the Gospel which he now en- joved, but from which they were excluded. Nor does he describe the wish as ever actually formed; only as a conceivable limit to which, if admissible, his self-de- votion for them would reach. Others ex- press their love by professing themselves ready to give their life for their friends; he declares the intensity of his affection by reckoning even his spiritual life not too great a price, if it might purchase their salvation. 4.) Not only on their re- lationship to himself does he ground this sorrow and this self-devotion: but on the recollection of their ancient privileges and glories. Who are Israelites (a name of honour, see John i, 48; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5); whose (is) the adoption (see Exod. iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii. 6; Isa. i. 2 al.), and the glory (perhaps their general preference and exaltation, conse- quent on the vio@ecta,—but far more pro- bably, as all the other substantives refer to separate matters of fact,—the Shechinah or visible manifestation of the divine Pre- sence on the mercy-seat between the che- rubims: see reff.), and the covenants (not, the two tables of the law,—as Beza, Grot., al..—which formed but one covenant, and are included in νομοθεσία; nor, the Old and New Testament Covenants,—as Aug., Jer., Calov., Wolf.—see Gal. iv. 24 ff: but the several renewals of the covenant ἡ επαγγελια D [copt] Chr-mss: επαγγελια Εἰ. om καὶ F Hip, [Epiph, Hil,] Cypr, Pelag (not Iren{-int, Hil,] for το, τα C1: om το F Epiph, Th Irt,. with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and finally with the whole people at Sinai :—see Gen. xv.9—21; xvii. 4, 7,10; xxvi.24; xxviil. 13; Exod. xxiv. 7, 8 al.), and the law-giving (‘si alii Solonibus et Lycurgis gloriantur, quanto justior est gloriandi materia de Domino!’ Calv. νομοθ. is both the act of giving the Law, and the Law thus given), and the service (ordinances of worship: see ref. Heb.), and the promises (probably only those to the patriarchs, of a Redeemer to come, are here thought of, as tle next two clauses place the patriarchs and Christ together without any mention of the prophets. So Abraham is described, Heb. vii. 6, as τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς ἐπαγγελίας), —whose are the fathers (probably to be limited to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob :— so De W., but Stephen gives of mar. a much wider meaning in Acts vii. 11, 12, 19, 39, 44, and so apparently Paul him- self, Acts xiii. 17. In all those places, however, except Acts vii. 19, ἡμῶν follows, whereas here the word is absolute: so that the above kanitation may be true),— and of whom is Christ, as far as regards the flesh (rdé,—acc., as also in ch. xii. 18, —implies that He was not entirely sprung from them, but had another nature: q. d. ‘on his human side, —‘ duntaxat quod at- tinet ad corpus humanum,’ as Erasmus), who is God over all (prob. neuter; for τὰ πάντα, not of πάντες, is the equivalent nominative in such sentences: see ch. xi. 36) blessed for ever. Amen. The punctuation and application of this doxo- logy have been much disputed. By the early Church it was generally rendered as above, and applied to Christ,—so Iren., Tert., Orig. h. 1., Athan., Epiph., Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., ic. Wet- stein has, it is true, collected passages from the fathers to shew that they applied the words 6 ἐπὶ πάντων θεός to the Farmer ABCD ΚΝ ἃ cdf gi kiwn ] ΑΒΕ KLyNa οὐ τά kil mn o 17 (47 ee 4. 6. ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOYS. 405 6 οὐχ Ῥ οἷον δὲ ὅτι * ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ ὃ λογος τοῦ ὃ θεοῦ: οὐ - < here only. iner, edn. a= fs ΠΕΣ see James i. 11. = πίπτειν, Luke ανὶ. 17. διαπ., Josh. xxi. 43 (45). Judith vi. 9. Koa. ἘΠ xi. 1 reff. alone, and protested against their applica- tion to the SON; but these passages them- selves protest only against the erroneous Noetian or Sabellian view of the zdentity of the Father and the Son, whereas in Eph. iv. 5, 6, εἷς κύριος, and εἷς θεὸς x. πατὴρ πάντων, ὃ ἐπὶ πάντων, are plainly dis- tinguished. That our Lord is not, in the strict exclusive sense, 6 ἐπὶ πάντων θεύς, every Christian will admit, that title being reserved for the Father: but that He is ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, none of the passages goes to deny. Had our text stood ἐξ ὧν ὁ xp. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ὁ εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, it would have appeared to countenance the above error, which as it now stands it cannot do. The first trace of a different interpretation, if it be one, is found in an assertion of the emperor Julian (Cyril, p. 821. Wetst.) τὸν γοῦν Ἰησοῦν οὔτε Παῦλος ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν θεόν, οὔτε Ματθαῖος οὔτε Μάρκος, ἀλλ᾽ 6 χρησ- τὸς Ιωάννης. The next is in the punctua- tion of two cursive mss. of the twelfth century (5 and 47), which place a period atter σάρκα, thus insulating ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάν- Τῶν .... ἀμήν, and regarding it as a doxology to God over all, blessed for ever, This is followed by Erasm., Wetst., Sem- ler, Reiche, Kéllner, Meyer, Fritzsche, Krehl, al. The objections to this rendering are, (1) ingenuously suggested by Socinus himself (Thol.), and never yet obviated,— that without one exception in Hebrew or Greek, wherever an ascription of blessing is found, the predicate εὐλογητός (73) precedes the name of God. (In the one place, Ps. Ixvii. 19 LXX, κύρ. 6 0. εὐλογη- τός, εὐλογητὸς Kup. ἡμέραν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, which seems to be an exception, the first evA. has no corresponding word in the Heb. and perhaps may be interpolated. So Stuart, and even Eichhorn, Einleit. ins A. T. p. 320. In Yates’s vindication of Unitarianism, p. 180, this is the only in- stance cited. Such cases as 3 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Jobi. 21; Ps. exii. 2, are no exceptions, as in all of them the verb εἴη or γένοιτο is expressed, requiring the substantive to follow it closely.) And this collocation of words depends, not upon the mere aim at perspicuity of arrangement (Yates, p. 180), but upon the circumstance that the stress is, in a peculiar manner, in such ascriptions of praise, on the predicate, which is used in a pregnant sense, the copula being omitted. (2) That the ὦν, on this rendering, would be superfluous altogether (see below). (3) That the doxology would be unmeaning and frigid in the extreme. It is not the habit of the Apostle to break out into irrelevant ascrip- tions of praise ; and certainly there is here nothing in the immediate context requiring one. If it be said that the survey of all these privileges bestowed on his people prompts the doxology,—surely such a view is most unnatural: for the sad subject of the Apostle’s sympathy, to which he im- mediately recurs again, is the apparent tnanity of all these privileges in the exelu- sion from life of those who were dignified with them. If it be said that the incar- nation of Christ is the exciting cause, the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα comes in most strangely, depreciating, as it would on that supposi- tion, the greatness of the event, which then becomes a source of so lofty a thanks- giving. (4) That the expression εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας is twice besides used by Paul, and each time unquestionably not in an ascription of praise, but in an asser- tion regarding the subject of the sentence. The places are, ch. i. 25, ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ Toy κτίσαντα, bs ἐστιν εὐλογη- τὸς εἰς τυὺς αἰῶνας. auhv,—and 2 Cor. xi. 31, ὁ θεὸς κ. πατὴρ τ. κυρ. ᾿Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν, ὁ ὧν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι : whereas he twice uses the phrase εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός as an ascription of praise, without joining εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. (5) That in the latter of the above-cited passages (2 Cor. xi. 31), not only the same phrase as here, but the same construction, 6 ὥν, occurs, and that there the whole refers to the subject of the sentence. I do not reckon among the objections the want of any contrast to τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, because that might have well been left to the readers to supply.. Another mode of punctuation has been suggested (Locke, Clarke, al.), and indeed is found in one ‘ms. of the same date as above (71): to set a period after πάντων and refer ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων to Christ, understanding by πάντων all the preceding glorious things, or the πατέρες only, or even ‘all things.’ This lies open to all the above objections except (5), and to this in addition, that as Bp. Middleton observes, we must in that case read 6 θεός. Variety of reading there is none worth notice: the very fathers [Ephr. Cypr-ed. Hil-ed. Leo] generally cited as omitting θεός, having it in the best manuscripts and _ editions. Crell (not Schlichting, see Thol. p. 484, note, edn. 1842) proposed (and is followed by Whiston, Whitby, and Taylor) to trans- pose 6 ὥν into ὧν 6;—but besides the objection to the sense thus arising, evAvyy- 4006 ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. 1X} eJobn viii. 33, γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἴσραήλ, οὗτοι ᾿Ισραήλ' 7 οὐδ᾽ ὅτε εἰσὶν BDF 37. (Acts iii. Ra 25. vii. 5,6.) ὃ σπέρμα © ABpaup, πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλ᾽ Ἔν ᾿Ισαὰκ “«An-cafgh ch. xi. 1. ᾽ ᾽ tine Gains θήσεταί σοι σπέρμα. 8." τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, οὐ τὰ τέκνα τῆς 017/47] Heb. ii. 16. , » , Isa. xli.8. π σαρκός, ταῦτα 'ἱ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἕτέκνα τῆς ad GEN. xxi. 12. + Isa. xlvili. g ἐπαγγελίας ἢ λογίζεται e Acts xix. 4 reff. f ch. viii. 16 reff. Kal ἔσται τῇ Σάῤῥα υἱός ΒΘ ΑΙ ΙΝ: 88 ἢ ὁ“ PPS nly h ch. ‘ii. 26 ge v. 3, ἄς. viii. 36. Acts xix. Wisd. ix. 6. xu, 1, oxrx. j see John xiv. 2. Deis σπέρμα. e , ὲ "κἍ, \ ὁ λόγος οὗτος, ' Κατὰ τὸν 9 > / \ ἐπαγγελίας yap ἱ καιρὸν ‘tovtov 1 ἐλεύσομαι - , , \ 10 Koy μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ i Gen. xviii. 10 (see note). see Acts k ch. v. 3, 11. viii. 23. 2 Cor. viii. 19. 6. for 2nd iopand, ἰσραηλειται DF latt(not tol) [arm] Chr-ms,(and Mtt’s mss.) ne -int, ] Ambrst Aug, : Tic 7. ισακ δὰ} DG fuld (so D ver 10) ] 8. aft rout ἐστιν add or: Bi(sic: m 672. 70. 114-20. 9. om ο ἢ. τός would probably in that case (not neces- sarily, as Bp. Middleton in loc.) have the art.: not to mention that no conjecture arising from doctrinal difficulty is ever to be admitted in the face of the consensus of Mss. and versions. The rendering given above is then not only that most agreeable to the usage of the Apostle, but the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement. It also admirably suits the context: for, having enumerated the historic advantages of the Jewish people, he concludes by stating one which ranks far higher than all,—that from them sprung, according to the flesh, He who is God over all, blessed for ever. ἀμὴν implies no optative ascription of praise, but is the accustomed ending of such solemn declarations of the divine Majesty ; compare ch. i. 25. 6—13. | God has not broken His promise: for He chose from the first but a portion of the seed of Abraham (6—9), and again only one out of the two sons of Rebecca(10—13). 6. ‘] Not however that (οὐχ οἷον δέ, ὅτι = ov τοῖον δὲ λέγω, οἷον ὅτι. . . ‘but I do not mean such a thing, as that . . , or ‘the matter however is not so, as that . .. De W. cites from Athen. vi. p. 244, οὐχ οἷον βαδίζει, and from Phrynich. p. 332, οὐχ οἷον ὀργίζομαι, in ἃ similar sense. The rendering, ‘ it is not possible that,’ would require ordinarily οἷόν τε with an infinitive,—and St. Paul is asserting, not the impossibility, how- ever true, of God’s word being broken, but the fact, that it was not broken) the word (1. 6. the promise) of God has come to nothing (see reff., so Lat., excidit) ; viz. by many, the majority of the nominal Israel, missing the salvation which seemed to be their inheritance by promise. For not all who are sprung from Israel (= Jacob, according to Tholuck: but this see table) 83 m 116 [arm] Orig). txt ABKLN rel Orig, Cas, [Nys, Cyr-p Procop] Augszpe om tov F does not seem necessary: Israel here as well as below may mean the people, but here in the popular sense, there in the divine idea), (these) are Israel (veritably, and in the sense of the promise). 7.) Nor, because they are (physically) the seed of Abraham, are all children (so as to inherit the promise), but (we read), “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (i.e. those only shall be called truly and properly, for the purposes of the covenant, thy seed, who are descended from Isaac, not those from Ishmael or any other son. Thol. renders καλεῖν here by erwecfen, ‘ to raise up’): 8.7 thatis (that amounts, when the facts of the history are recol- lected, to saying) not [they which are | the children of the flesh (begotten by natural generation, compare John i. 13, and Gal. iv. 29) are the children of God; but the children of the promise (begotten not naturally, but by virtue of the divine promise (Gal. iv. 23, 28), as Isaac) are reckoned for seed. 9.] For this word was (one) of protfise (not, ‘For this was the word of promise,’ i.e. οὗτος γὰρ ὃ A. τῆς ἐπαγγ. ‘The stress is on ἐπαγγελίας : the children of promise are reckoned for seed: for this word, in fulfilment of which Isaac was born, was a word of promise), According to this time (m7 ny2, ‘when the time (shall be) reviviscent, >__as De W., Thol., al. :—i.e. next year at this time. The citation is a free one; the LXX has ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω πρός σε κατὰ τὸν και- ρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας, κ. ἕξει υἱὸν Σάῤῥα ἡ γυνή σου. The change into ἔσται τῇ Σάῤῥᾳ υἱός is probably made for the sake of emphasis—the promise was to Sarah) I will come, and Sarah shall have 8 son. 10, 11.1 And not only (80) (i.e. not only have we an example of the election of a son of Abraham by one woman, aud the rejectiin of a son by an- ¢ 7—12. 1ΤΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. 407 Ῥεβέκκα ἐξ ἑνὸς ἰἱ κοίτην ἔχουσα, ᾿Ισαὰκ τοῦ πατρὸς 1 = here (Luke ἡμῶν, 1} ™ μήπω yap γεννηθέντων μηδὲ πραξάντων τὶ sits. “Heb, [P τ ex ἀγαθὸν ἢ " φαῦλον, ἵνα ἡ κατ᾽ ο ἐκλογὴν ἢ πρόθεσις TOU med. ix.8 + a ᾿ καλοῦντος, 5 Paul, Tit. ii. | “ > ͵ ᾽ a θεοῦ «μένῃ, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ δ την τ᾿ . i DD 297 4... χὰ ς / , a 12 ἐῤῥέθη αὐτῇ ὅτι ὁ " μείζων * δουλεύσει τῷ ' ἐλάσσονι, iii. 20. v. 29. James iii. 16 only. Prov. xxii. 8. o Acts ix. 15. ch. xi. 5,7, 28. 1 Thess.i.4. 2 Pet. i. 10 only τ. Isa. xxii. 7 Aq. p Acts xxvii. 13 reff. q = Matt. xi. 23. 1 Cor. iii. 14. 2 Cor. ix. 9. 1 Pet. i. 23, 25, from Isa. xl. 8. r = ch. viii. 30 reff. s — Heb. xi. 24. Gen. x. 21. xxix. 16. GEN. xxv. 23. t = John viii. 33, Acts vii. 7, from Gen. xv. 11. i. 16.) 11. for unde, ἡ F latt [ Ambrst]. rec (for φαυλ.) κακον (more usual word), with DFKL rel Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt ΤῊ] He: txt ABN m [47] Orig, Cyr[-p, ] Damasc. ἃ =1 Tim. v. 9 (John ii. 10, Heb. vii. 7) only. 1. 6. (Gen. rec tov θεου bef προθεσις, with Chr{-montf,]: txt ABDFKL[ PX rel latt Orig,[int, | Chr-2-mss Thdrt. mewn Ε [μενεῖ P 17). 12. rec eppy on, with B?D?L rel Orig, Chr,: txt AB!D!FK[P]JN bd fhkno [Chr, Dimasce] Thdrt.[—add yap P ]. Ambrst Bede. μειζον RX}, other, but also of election and rejection of the children of the same woman, Rebecca, and that before they were born. οὐ μόνον δέ introduces an ἃ fortiors considers tion. In the construction supply τοῦτο only), but when Rebecca also had conceived (see ref. Num. and ch. xiii. 13, where the mean- ing is not exactly the same though cognate) by one man (in the former case, the chil- dren were by two wives; the difference be- tween that case and this being, that there, was diversity of parents, here, identity. The points of contrast being then this di- versity and identity, the zdentity of the Sather also is brought into view. This is well put by Chrys.: 7 yap Ῥεβέκκα καὶ μόνη τῷ ᾿Ισαὰκ γέγονε γυνή, Kal δύο τεκοῦσα παῖδας, ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Ισαὰκ ἔτεκεν ἀμ- φοτέρους" ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οἱ τεχθέντες τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρὸς ὄντες. THS αὐτῆς μητρός, τὰς αὐτὰς λύσαντες ὠδῖνας, καὶ ὁμοπάτριοι ὄντες καὶ ὁμομήτριοι, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις καὶ δίδυμοι, οὐ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀπήλαυσαν. Hom. xvi. p. 610), our father Isaac (τ. mat. ju., probably said without any special reference, the Apostle speaking as a Jew. If with any design it might be, as Thol. remarks, to shew that even among the Patriarchs’ children such distinction took place. Christians being τέκνα ἐπαγγελίας, the expression might apply to them: but, as tle same Commentator observes, the argu- ment here is to shew that not all the children of promise belonged to the ἐκ- Aoyh. See ch. iv. 1—12. As to the construction here, it is best to regard ἀλλὰ Kal... ἔχουσα ... ἡμῶν as a sen- tence begun but intercepted by the remark following, and resumed in another form at ἐῤῥ. αὐτῇ), ἴΟΥ (not answering to ‘furnishes us an example’ supplied after ἔχουσα, but elliptically put, answering to the apprehension in the Apostle’s mind of the force of the example which he is about to adduce. For this use of γάρ see John om avty D}(and lat) hari! Orig,{ int,(ins int;) | iv. 44, note; Herod. i. 8, Γύγη, οὐ yap... «3 30, ἐεῖνε ᾽Αθ. παρ᾽ ἡμέας yap... . Thucyd. i. 72, τῶν δὲ ᾽Αθ. ἔτυχε γὰρ... .; and other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 467) without their having been yet born (tke subject, the children, is to be supplied partly from the fact of her preg- nancy just stated, partly from the history, well known to the readers. μή instead of ov is frequently used by later Greek writers in participial clauses: Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 55.5; so Acts ix.9, qv... μὴ βλέπων kK. οὐκ ἔφαγεν... and Luke xiii. 11, μὴ δυναμένη ἀνακύψαι. See Schafer, Demosth. iii. 395, and Hartung, ii. 130—132) or having done any thing good or ill (paiva. an unusual word with Paul = properly ἁπλοῦν, ῥάδιον, εὐτελές, as Timeus in Lex. to Plato, with whom it is a very common word in this sense. Ruhknken, on the word in Timezus, gives from the Lex. Rhetor. MS., τὸ φ. σημαίνει δέκα" ἐπί τε mposmmov καὶ πράγματος τὸ κακόν. τὸ μικρόν, K. τὸ εὐκαταφρόνητον, K. τὸ ἀσθενές. κ. τὸ ἄδοξυν. K. τὸ ἀνόητον, K.T.A. This will shew the connexion of the strict and the wider meaning), { to the end | that the purpose of God according to (purposed in pursuance of, or in accordance with, or (Thol.) with reference to His) election (Thol. prefers taking κατ᾽ ἐκλ. adjec- tively, as Bengel has rendered it, ‘* pro- positum electivum,’ and as in Polyb. vi. 34. 8, εἷς ἑκάστης ἀνὴρ λαμβάνεται Kar’ ἐκλογήν, ‘electively’) may (not might ; the purpose is treated as one in all time, which would be nullified if once thwarted) abide (stand firm; the opposite of ἐκπίπ- τειν, see reff. 1 Pet., Isa.),—mot {depend- ing on] works (ch. iii. 20; iv. 2) but on Him that calleth,—(this clause does not seem to depend on any one word of the foregoing or following, as on ἐῤῥέθη, Calv., Luth. ;—or μένῃ, Rickert, Meyer ;—or κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, Fritz.;—but tobe a general 408 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS v MAL. i. 2, eit w ch. iil. 5 re 9 A , 5: - a : x Luke xii 27. ἐμίσησα. 1+ Tr οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; Ps. χοὶ. 13. \ / yc. “ithe ; 2 μὴ γένοιτο. Ε ; ob ? / A xX b , / 318. 13. Va KTELO®. zch. iii. 4 reff. ΜΟῚ sting ai ad ᾿ ν ου ρ a Matt χα QéeNXNovTos OVE τοῦ XXXiii. 19. -ἂν (pres.) here bis. Jude 23 only. Prov. xxi. 26 A(not F ἄς.) BUN. ech, v. 18 reff. ἃ = 1 Cor. ix. 24. Gal. v. 7. 13. καθαπερ B Orig, ΓΡ rel] Thdrt. 16. rec εἐλεουντος, with B?K [rel Orig txt AB!DF[P 8. characteristic of the whole transaction ; see a similar ἐκ in ch. 1.17. Thol., De W. Thus viewed, or indeed however taken, it is decisive against the Pelagian- ism of the Romanists, who by making our faith as foreseen by God the cause of our election, affirm it to be ἐξ ἔργων. See the matter discussed in Thol.),—it was said to her (ὅτι is recitantis; the LXX have καί), “The elder shall serve the younger ” (this prophecy is distinctly connected in Gen. xxv. with the pro- phetic description of the children as two nations,—Aabs λαοῦ ὑπερέξει, καὶ 6 μείζων κιτιλ. But the nations must be con- sidered as spoken of in their progenitors, and the elder nation = that sprung from the elder brother. History records several subjugations of Edom by the kings of Judah; first by David (2 Sam. viii. 14);—under Joram they rebelled (2 Kings viii. 20), but were defeated by Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7), and Elath taken from them by Uzziah (2 Kings xiv. 22); under Ahaz they were again free, and troubled Judah (2 Chron. xxviii. 16, 17, compare 2 Kings xvi. 6, 7),—and con- tinued free, as prophesied in Gen. xxvii. 40, till the time of John Hyrcanus, who (Jos. Antt. xili. 9.1) reduced them finally, so that thenceforward they were incorpo- rated among the Jews): as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (there is no necessity here to soften the ‘ hated’ into ‘loved less :’ the words in Malachi pro- ceed on the fullest meaning of ἐμίσησα, see ver. 4 there, “ The people against whom the LorD hath indignation for ever 7). 14—29.] This election was made by the indubitable right of God, Who is not therefore unjust. 14.) What then shall we say (anticipation of a difficulty or objection, see reff.,—but not put into the mouth of an objector)? Is there un- righteousness (injustice) with (in) God (viz. in that He chooses as He will, with- out any reference to previous desert) ὃ Let Ps. cxviii. 32, gen., Acts i. 7. ΙΧ, 13 καθὼς γέγραπται " Tov ᾿Ιακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ησαῦ μὴ * ἀδικία " παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ; 13 τῷ Μωσῇ γὰρ λέγει *’EXenow ὃν ἂν ἃ ἐλεῷ, 9 A 16 «ἄρα “οὖν ov τοῦ 4 χρέχοντος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ * ἐλεῶντος θεοῦ. b here bis only. 4 Kings xiii. 23. Heb. ν. 14. : 14. om τω D'F. 15. rec yap bef uwon, with AKL rel Chr Thdart: txt BDF[P]X® Damase. FKLN[P rel]: txt ABD [g].— -σει ΒΓΕ cd g Chr-2-mss [ Damasc] : μωυσ. -ση AB!IDKLN 4 Eus, Chr Thdrt Damasc] ; εὐδοκουντὸς L: it not be: 15.] for He saith to Moses, ‘‘I will have mercy on whormso- ever I have mercy, and [1] will have compassion on whomsoever I have com- passion.” ‘The citation is from the LXX, who insert the indefinite av, the Heb. be- ing .... jx Weng ὭΣΤ; the meaning apparently being, ‘whenever I have merc y on any, it shall be pure mercy, no human desert contributing τ᾿ which agrees better with the next verse than the ordinary ren- dering, which lays the stress on the ὃν ἄν; and is not inconsistent with ver. 18, ὃν θέλει, ἐλεᾷ : because if God’s mercy be pure mercy without any desert on man’s part, it necessarily follows that he has mercy on whom He will, His will being the only assignable cause of the selection. 16.| So then (inference from the citation) it is not οὗ (God’s mercy ‘ does not belong to,’—-‘is not in the power of,’ see reff.) him that willeth (any man willing it) nor of him that runneth (any man contending for it, see reff. and Phil. iii. 14, _ There hardly can be any allusion to Abraham’s wish for Ishmael, Gen. xvii. 18, and Esau’s running to hunt for venison, as Stuart, Burton, al.), but of God that hath mercy. I must pause again here to remind the student, that 1 purposely do not enter on the disquisitions so abundant in some commentaries on this part of Scrip- ture, by which it is endeavoured to recon- cile the sovereign election of God with our tree will. We shall find that free will asserted strongly enough for all edifying purposes by this Apostle, when the time comes. At present, he is employed wholly in asserting the divine Sovereignty, the glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to distract by continual downward looks on this earth. I must also protest against all endeavours to make it appear, that no inference lies from this passage as to the salvation of individuals, It is most true (see remarks at the beginning of this chapter) that the immediate subject is 13—18. A δι ’ > a) »“" > > 17 λέγει γὰρ “ ἡ γραφὴ τῷ Φαραὼ ὅτι ‘els 8 αὐτὸ ὅ τοῦτο « sing., Mark 5 2 - ͵ " \ \ / ΄ 5 h ἐξήγειρά σε, ὅπως | ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου \ 6 A \ " ΄ , 7, “ A καὶ ὅπως * διαγγελῇ TO ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῆ. = 4 a A : uf 7, 18 ὁ ἄρα “ οὖν ὃν θέλει ** ἐλεεῖ, Ov δὲ θέλει !oKANpUVEL. g Acts xxiv. 15 reff. ΠΡῸΣ POUMATOT>.. ἢ = here (1 Cor. vi. 14) only. Judg. v. 12. i and constr., 1 Tim. i. 16. (see ver. 22.) Exon. ix. 16. 409 xi. 22 and passim. ch. iv. 9.4], f Mark i. 38. John xviii. 37. Acts ix. 21 Ps. vii. 6 al. Jos. Antt. viii. 11. k Luke ix. 60. Acts xxi. 26 only. 1. c. 1 Acts xix. 9. Heb. iii. 8,13, 18. iv. 7 only. Exod. iv. 21 (737). vii. 3 (TWP), al. 17. evdetoua F[not G} L[P 17] ¢ 11 Chr-ms. γελει L[P] f 0 [-γειλη m]. 18. In A, from ov δε 0. to ἡ ove exert ver. 21 is in a later hand. ins o Geos D. | B?). the national rejection of the Jews : but we must consent to hold our reason in abey- ance, if we do not recognize the infer- ence, that the sovereign power and free election here proved to belong to God extend to every exercise of His mercy — whether temporal or spiritual—whether in Providence or in Grace—whether national or individual. It is in parts of Scripture like this, that we must be especially careful not to fall short of what is written : not to allow of any compromise of the plain and awful words of God’s Spirit, for the sake of a caution which He Himself does not teach us. 17.) The same great truth shewn on its darker side :—not only as regards God’s mercy, but His wrath also. For (confirmation of the wazrersal truth of the last inference) the Scripture (identified with God, its Author : the case, as Thol. re- marks, is different when merely something contained in Scripture is introduced by ἢ γραφὴ λέγει: there 7 yp. is merely per- sonified. The justice of Thol.’s remark will be apparent, if we reflect that this expression could not be used of the mere ordinary words of any man in the histo- rical Scriptures, Ahab, or Hezekiah,—but only where the text itself speaks, or where God spoke, or, as here, some man under inspiration of God) saith to Pharaoh, For this very purpose (ὅτι recitantis; the LXX have καὶ ἕνεκεν TovTov) did I raise thee up (LXX διετηρήθης, ‘ thou wert preserved to this day: Heb. ATO from oy, stetit, in Hiph. stare fecit ; hence taken to sig- nity (1) ‘ constituit, muneri prefecit,’ as 1 Kings xii. 32; Isa. xxi. 6 (LXX σεαυτῷ στῆσον σκόπον); Esth. iv. 5,—(2) ‘con- Jirmavit, as 1 Kings xv. 4 al.,—and (8) ‘prodire fecit, excitavit, Dan. xi. 11; Neh. vi. 7 : the meaning ‘incolumem pre- stitit,’ given in the Lexicons, seems to be grounded on the following of the LXX in this passage, who apparently understood it of Pharaoh being kept safe through the piagues. This has been done by modern interpreters [perhaps] to avoid the strong aft [2nd] omws ins αν F. διαγ- [aft lst θελει * ἐλεᾷ D'F.—aft eA. ims ov δε θελει εἐλεει B'(Tischdf: om assertion which the Apostle here gives, purposely deviating from the LXX, that Pharaoh was ‘ raised up, called into action in his office, to be an example of God’s dealing with impenitent sinners. The word chosen by the Apostle, ἐξεγείρω, in its transitive sense, is often used by the LXX for ‘ to rouse into action :’ see besides reff. Ps. lvi. 8; Ixxix. 2; Cant. iv. 16 al. So that the meaning (3) given above for the Heb. verb—‘ prodire fecit, excitavit,’ was evidently that intended by ἐξήγειραῚ, that I may shew in thee (‘in thee as an example,’—‘ in thy case,’—‘ by thee’) my power (τ. ἰσχύν μου LXX-B: δύν. (which is read in A) is perhaps chosen by the Apostle as more general, ἰσχύς applying rather to those deeds of miraculous power of which Egypt was then witness), and that my Name may be proclaimed in all the earth (compare as a comment, the words of the song of triumph, Exod. xv. 14—16). 18.| Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will (ref. to ver. 15, where see note), and whom He will, He hardeneth. The frequent recurrence of the expression σκληρύνειν τὴν καρδίαν in the history of Pharaoh should have kept Commentators (Carpzov, Ernesti, al., and of Lexicographers, Wahl and Bret- schneider) from attempting to give to σκληρύνω the sense of ‘ treating hardly,’ against which the next verse would be decisive, if there were no other reason for rejecting it. But it is very doubtful whether the word can ever bear the mean- ing. The only passage which appears to justify it (for in 2 Chron. x. 4 it clearly has the import of hardening, making severe) is Job xxxix. 16, where ἀπεσκλή- ρυνε τὰ τέκνα ἑαυτῆς (αὑτῆς AN) the LXX version of the Heb. τ ΡΠ, is supposed to mean, ‘treats her offspring hardly.’ But the LXX by this compound seem to have intended, ‘ casts off her offspring in her hardness ;’ the Εἰ. V. has,‘ She is hardened against her young ones.’ Whatever difficulty there lies in this assertion, that = 410 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS IX’ oer 9 / = , , ΝΣ , τιον, iit. 19. ἐρεῖς μοι οὗν ™ Τί [οὖν] ἔτι ™ μέμφεται ; τῷ γὰρ ° βουλή- Gal. ν. 11. ’ to , , , 5) > » a Heb. 8 Ρ ς - 20 q ἊΣ ΠΟ 2 ματι AVTOV τις ἀνθέστηκεν ; ω ἄνθρωπε, MEVOUVYE rec.) only t. ᾿ / τὰ pee x ; A θ γι \ 5) ΜΞ \ Sir χ ῖ αἰ OU WS El* O QAVTATTOKPLVOKMEVOS τῷ EW ; My €pEel TO 7. 2M Ve ene o Acts xxvii. 43. 1 Pet. iv. 3only+. 2 Macc. xv. 5 only. p Acts vi. 10 reff: q ch. x. 8 (Luke xi. 28 v. r.) only. r Luke xiv. 6 only. “Judg. v.29 A Ald.compl. Job xvi. 9. xxxii. 12 only- 19. ree Ist ovy bef μοι, with DFKL [rel] latt [copt] Orig,[int,] Chr, Thdrt: om ovy 73. 118 arm: txt ABR P 47] m syr goth Orig, [ Dam: 180. rec om 2nd ουν, with AKL[P]§& rel vulg [syrr copt seth arm | Orig, Chr, ‘Vhdrt Aug[sepe Ambrst] : ins BDF Jer, Sedul. elz om yap, with G- ii: ins ABDFKL[ PN rel [vss] Orig,[int,] Ath, Chr, Thdrt Thdor-mops Damase Aug. 20. rec ee bef w ανθρ. (to suit the arrangement in other places: see reff. Had the μενουνγε been transposed in A &c to avoid plucing it first in the sentence (see Phryn Lobeck, p. 342), the same various reading would have occurred in the other places, which it does not), with D? KK LX’, P 47-marg(sic) | rel syrr copt [goth (arm) ] Orig, Chr, Thdrt Thdor mops, e Thi: Augsepe | Jer: God hardeneth whom He will, lies also in the daily course of His Providence, in which we see this hardening process going on in the case of the prosperous ungodly man. The fact is patent, whether declared by revelation or read in history: but to the solution of it, and its reconciliation with the equally certain fact of human responsibility, we shall never attain in this imperfect state, however we may strive to do so by subtle refinements and distinc- tions. The following is the admirable advice of Augustine (ad Sixtum, Ep. exciv. 6. 23, vol. ii. p. 882), from whom in this case it comes with double weight : “ Satis sit interim Christiano ex fide adhuc viventi, et nondum cernenti quod perfectum est, sed ex parte scienti, nosse vel credere quod neminem Deus liberet nisi gratuita misericordia per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et neminem damnet nisi zquissi- ma veritate per eundem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Cur autem illum potius quam illum liberet aut non liberet, scrute- tur qui potest judiciorum ejus tam magnum profundum,—verumtamen caveat pre- cipitium.” 19.] Thou wilt say then to me (there seems no reason to suppose the objector a Jew, as Thol. after Grot., Calov., Koppe, al.:—the objection is a general one, applying to all mankind, and likely to arise in the mind of any reader. The expression ὦ ἄνθρωπε seems to confirm this), Why then doth He yet find fault (ἔτι as ch. iii. 7, assuming your premises,—‘ if this be so: at the same time it expresses a certain irritation on the part of the objector: ‘exprimit morosum fremitum,’ Bengel. μέμφομαι has a stronger sense than mere blame here : Hesych. interprets it αἰτιᾶται, ἐξουθενεῖ, καταγινώσκει : see the apocryphal reff. Thol.)? For who resists (not, ‘hath resisted: ἀνθέστηκεν. like ἕστηκεν, is present, see Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 40. 4. Ὁ, and compare ἐφέστηκεν, 2 Tim. iv. 6) om μενουνγε DIF latt eth txt A(B)&?! m [47-txt Orig, ] Chr-ms, Damasc.—om γε b. ((Meth) Orig-int, His will (i. e. if it be His will to harden the sinner, and the sinner goes on in his sin, he does not resist but goes with the will of God)? Yea rather (uevodvye, see reff., takes the ground from under the previous assertion and supersedes it by another: im- plying that it has a certain ‘show of tr uth, but that the proper view of the matter is yet to be stated. It thus conveys, as in ref. Luke, an intimation of rebuke; here, with severity: ‘that which thou hast said, may be correct human reasoning—but as against God’s sovereignty, thy reasoning is out of place and irrelevant ’), 0 man (per- haps without emphasis implying the con- trast between man and God.—for this is done by the emphatic ov following, and we have ἄνθρωπε unemphatic in ch. ii. 1), who art THOU that repliest against (the ἀντί seems to imply contradiction, not merely dialogue: see besides reff., ἀνταπόκρισιν, Job xiii. 22, BC) Gop P—implying, ‘ thou hast neither right nor power, to call God to account in this manner.’ Notice, that the answer to the objector’s question does not lie in these vv. 20, 21, but in the follow- ing (see there) ;—the present verses are a rebuke administered to the spirit of the objection, which forgets the immeasurable distance between us and God, and the re- lation of Creator and Disposer in which He stands to us. So Chrys.,—kal οὐδὲ τὴν λύσιν εὐθέως ἐπάγει, συμφερόντως Kal τοῦτο ποιῶν" ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιστομίζει πρῶτον τὸν ζ(η- τοῦντα, λέγων οὕτω μενοῦνγε.. . .. θεῷ; ποιεῖ δὲ τοῦτο, τὴν ἄκαιρον αὐτοῦ περι- εργίαν ἀναστέλλων, κ. τὴν πολλὴν πολυ- πραγμοσύνην, K. χαλινὸν περιτιθείς, κ. παιδεύων εἰδέναι τί μὲν θεὸς τί δὲ ἄνθρω- πος, K. πῶς ἀκατάληπτος αὐτοῦ ἡἣ πρό- voila, K. πῶς ὑπερβαίνουσα τὸν ἡμέτερον λογισμόν, κ. πῶς ἅπαντα αὐτῷ πείθεσθαι δεῖ ἵνα ὅταν τοῦτο κατασκευάσῃ παρὰ τῷ ἀκροατῇ, kK. καταστείλῃ κ. λεάνῃ τὴν γνώμην, τότε μετὰ πολλῆς εὐκολίας ἐπ- AFDP ΚΙΓΡῚΝΣ abcdt gnk} mnt? [a7 J a ee 19—23. ΠΡΟΣ PAMAIOTS 41] 5 , a t , ’ >] / fa ef i 9] a 1s i δὴν ΤῈ Sinead 2 ἽΝ μα ETOLNGAS ουτως: Lif eee 19} > nw Qn ’ al SA. i > οὐκ ἔχει " ἐξουσίαν ὁ ἡ κεραμεὺς τοῦ “ἡ πηλοῦ, ἐκ TOD yi Tim iis > a x / a y ἃ Ν Z ᾽ \ a a only. Gen. auTou φυράματος ΤΟιῆσαι O μεν ELS τιμὴν σκεῦος, il. » 8. ‘ u and constr., ἃ \ ? > / oC ? \ 7 ς ᾽ . YO δὲ 5 εἰς ἢ ἀτιμίαν ; 22 « εἰς δὲ θέλων ὁ θεὸς 4 ἐνδείξα- ον. 1χ.12 θ \ 2 \ \ e , \ f 3 \ 5) a v Matt. xxvii. ovat τὴν Οργὴν Kat γνωρισαᾶν TO UVQ@TOV QUTOU_ 7,10 only. & ἤνεγκεν ἐν πολλῇ ἢ μακροθυμία ἱ σκεύη ὀργῆς * κατ Isa. aly. 9 yvey i Pak pocupid 7 opyns dl | alli 8 , > ἢ ΄, 9 \ “ / \ a : 2 τισμένα εἰς ἰ ἀπώλειαν, 35 καὶ ™ ἵνα" γνωρίση τον ™ πλοῦτον Ἶ 6. a 0 ὃ , Ε ΟΝ ey fs / p δι A q ! &c. (5 times) Τῆς ὀξης αὐτου ἐπι σκευὴ €NEOUS, a TT PONT OLUAG EV only. Gen xi; x ch. xi. 16. 1Cor. ν. 6, 7. Gal. v.9only. Exod. xii. 34. y 1 Cor. xi. 21 reff. z= ch. ipl, Ὁ 51 fr. a = 2 Tim. il. 20,21. Heb.ix. 21 al. Exod. iii. 22. Ὁ ch. 1. 26 reff. c Acts xxiii. 9. ἃ constr., ch. ii. 15. Eph. ii. 7. Tit. ii. 10. ili.2. Heb. vi. 10, 11. see ver. Piece Gene ly 25, 17. e 1 Cor. xii. 3 reff. ee ὍΣ constr., ch. i. 19, 20. viii. 3. = Heb. xii. 20 only. (see Heb. xiii. 13.) φέρειν TL πράως, Ken. Gru: ii, 2. 9. 1566 ver. 21. Jer. xxvii. (l.) 25. constr., Acts ix. 15. h ch. ii. 4 reff. io — Heb. x. 5 (from Ps. xxxix.6) xi. 2) Matt. iv. 21. 2 11: Acts viii, 20 reff. Jobn xvii.12. Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 2 m constr., see Winer, edn. 6, $ 63. I. 1. n ch. ii. 4 reff. o Eph. i. "18. iii. 16. (Phil. iv. 19.) Col. i. 27. p Luke i. 50 ἄς. Eph.ii.4. Exod. xx. 6. q Eph. 11. 10 only. Isa. xxviii. 22, Wisd. ix. 8 only. for eroinoas, ἐπλασας D[-gr] Syr Thl- -marg. 22. om ἡνεγκεν F D?-lat Julian). ins εἰς bef σκευὴ F [ D!-lat] Ambrst Julian. 23. om Ist καὶ Β m 39. 47-marg 672. 80. 116 vulg copt goth arm[Griesb, not Treg ] (Orig[-int, ]) Jer Pel Sedul Fulg,. for tov πλουτον, To πλουτους5 F. [for δοξης, χρηστυτητος P.]} άγων τὴν λύσιν, εὐπαράδεκτον αὐτῷ ποιήσῃ τὸ λεγόμενον. Hom. xvi. p. 614. Simi- larly Calvin: ‘Hac priori responsione uihil aliud quam improbitatem illius blas- pheuize retundit, argumento ab hominis conditione sumpto. Alteram mox subjiciet, qua Dei justitiam ‘ab omni criminatione vindicabit.’ Shall the thing formed (properly of a production of plastic art, moulded of clay or wax) say to him who formed it, ‘‘ Why madest thou me thus?”’ These words are slightly altered from Isa. xxix. 16 LXX,—pv ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι αὐτό(οιη. αὐτό AR), Οὐ σύ με ἔπλασας; ἢ τὸ ποίημα τῷ ποιήσαντι, Οὐ συνετῶς με ἐποίησας ; Or (intro- duces a new objection, or fresh ground of rebuke, see ch. ii. 4; iii. 29; vi. 3; xi. 2) hath not the potter power over the clay (the similitude from ref. Isa. In Sir. xxxvi. (xxxiii.) 13, we have a very similar senti- ment: ὡς wnrds κεραμέως ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ “νων οὕτως ἄνθρωποι ἐν χειρὶ τοῦ ποιή- σαντος αὐτούς. And even more strikingly 80, Wisd. xv. 7: καὶ yap κεραμεὺς ἁπαλὴν γῆν θλίβων ἐπίμοχθον πλάσσει πρὸς ὑπη- ρεσίαν ἡμῶν ἕκαστον(ὲν ἕκ. ACR), ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πηλοῦ ἀνεπλάσατο τά τε τῶν καθαρῶν ἔργων δοῦλα σκεύη τά τε ἐναντία πάνθ᾽ (πάντα AN) ὁμοίως" τούτων δὲ ἕκα- τέρου(ἑτέρου BN, ἑτέρων N1) τίς ἑκάστου ἐστὶν ἡ(οιῃ. ἡ &) χρῆσις, κριτὴς ὃ πηλουρ- yés. See also Jer. xviii. 6), out of the same lump to make one vessel unto ho- nour (honourable uses) and another unto dishonour (dishonourable uses. See ref. 2 Tim. The honour and dishonour are not here the moral purity or impurity of the human vessels, but their w/timate glorifi- cation or perdition. The Apostle in asking this question, rather aims at striking dumb the objector by a statement of God’s un- doubted right, against which it does not become us men to murmur, than at un- folding to us the actual state of the case. This he does in the sue verses ; see above, from Chrys. and Calv.) ? 22. | But what if (by the elliptical εἰ δέ the an- swer to the question of the objector, ver. 19, seems to be introduced ; ἐὰν οὖν occurs in a similar connexion John vi. 62; and ἀλλ᾽ εἰ, Soph. (4. Col. 590,---ἀλλ᾽ εἰ θέλοντάς γ᾽ οὐδὲ σοὶ φυγεῖν καλόν ; See Hartung, Parti- kellehre, ii. 212. 6) (1) God, purposing to shew forth His wrath, and to make known His power (that which He could do), en- dured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted [prepared, made complete and ready] for destruction; and (what if this took place) (2) that He might make known the riche: of His glory on (not fo, as De Wette, who joins it with γνωρίσῃ.--- but ‘toward,’ on, ‘with regard to,’ depen- dent on πλοῦτον, as πλουτῶν εἰς. ch. x. 12) the vessels of mercy, which He before prepared for glory? t I have given the whole, that my view of the construction might be evident: viz. that (1) and (2) are parallel clauses, both dependent on εἰ δέ; θέλων giving the purpose of the Ist, and ἵνα yv. that of the 2nd. They might be cast into one form by writing the 1st 6 θ., ἵνα ἐνδείξηται. . . . κι yvwplon,—or the 2nd, καὶ θέλων γνωρίσαι. Only I do not, as Calv., Beza, Grot., Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, and Winer, understand the same ἤνεγκεν .... ἀπώλ., as belonging to both, but only to the 1st, and supply before the 2nd, ‘What if this took place,’ viz. this ὃν θέλει, ἐλεεῖ, Other constructions ΚΙΓΡῚΣΝ ἂν. as 412 ΤΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. TX: ’ ¢ ἃ \ 3 ΄ ΄ a , ’ 5» πα, εἰς τδόξαν; 535 οὺς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν μᾶς ov μόνον ἐξ appr eff. / \ . ἢ “ oe ae \ «Narki.2, Ἰουδαίων, ἀλλὰ Kal ἐξ ἐθνῶν, 35 ὡς καὶ “ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ Heb. iv. 7. t Hosea ii. 23° ast Καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαὸν μου λαόν μου, καὶ τὴν οὐκ (ἡ ῶ \ ulesei.to. ἢ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην. “6. “Kal ἔσται ἐν TH τόπῳ οὗ ἐῤῥέθη αὐτοῖς Οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσον- 25. om εν B. 26. for οὗ, ὦ N'(txt N-corr! ?) [Thdrt]. rec ἐρρήθη, with B?D°L rel Ge: txt AB! D!-gr ΚΓΡῚΝ ἃ ἔν Καὶ 1? evp. 1}}] n 17 (Euthal-ms Damase} Thdrt Thl.—for Epp. avt., αν κληθησονται F{- gr] (D?!-lat Aimbrst) : eanuhodae Iren-int. have been,—to make ἵνα depend on κατηρ- Tigneva— prepared to destruction for this very purpose, that ἄς. So Fritz. and Rickert, ed. 2; but this seems to overlook kal, or to regard it as = καὶ τοῦτο :—to take ver. 23 as a new sentence, supplying ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς, as Tholuck. Stuart supplies θέλων before iva yv., and ἠλέησεν before οὖς ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς. This in fact amounts to nearly the same as my own view, but appears objectionable, inasmuch as it joins ver. 24 to ver. 23: see below. The argument is, ‘ What if God, in the case of the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, has, in willing to manifest His power and wrath, also exhibited towards them long-suffering (to lead them torepent- ance, ch. ii. 4,—a mystery which we cannot fathom), and in having mercy on the ves- sels of mercy prepared for glory, has also made manifest the riches of His glory ὃ Then in beth these dispensations will ap- pear, not the arbitrary power, but the rich goodness of God. The theological diffi- culties in κατηρτισμένα and προητοίμασεν (in both cases God is the agent; not they themselves, as Chrys., Theophyl., Olsh. Bengel, however, rightly remarks, “ non dicit que προκατήρτισε, cum tamen ver. seq. dicat ‘que preparavit.’ Cf. Matt. xxv. 34 cum ver. 41, et Act. xiii. 46 cum ver. 48”) are but such as have occurred re- peatedly before, and, as Stuart has well ob- served, are inherent, not in the Apostle’s argument, nor even in revelation, but in any consistent belief of an omnipotent and omniscient God. See remarks on ver. 18. σκεύη ὀργῆς and σκεύη ἐλέους are vessels prepared to subserve, as it were to hold, His ὀργή and ἔλεος : hardly, as Calvin, instruments to shew forth: that is done, over and above their being σκεύη, but is not necessary to it. The ok. doy. and ox. ἐλ. are not to be, with a view to evade the general applica- tion, confined to the instances of Pha- raoh and the Jews: these instances give occasion to the argument, but the argu- ment itself is general, extending to all the in loco liberata (ἐρρυσθη Ὁ) in quo dealings of God. 24.| Of which kind (quales, agreeing with 7uas—i.e. σκεύη ἐλέους) He also called us, not only from among the Jews, but 4150 from among the Gentiles. It being entirely in the power of God to preordain and have mercy on whom He will, He has exercised this right by calling not only the remnant of His own people, but a people from among the Gentiles also. 25, 26.| It is difti- cult to ascertain in what sense the Apostle cites these two passages from Hosea as applicable to the Gentiles being called to be the people of God. That he does so, is manifest from the words themselves, and from the transition to the Jews in ver. 27. In the prophet they are spoken of /srael ; see ch. i. 6—11, and ch. ii. throughout: who after being rejected and put away, was to be again received into favour by God. Two ways are open, by which their citation by the Apostle may be understood. Either (1) he brings them forward to shew that it is consonant with what we know of God’s dealings, to receive as His people, those who were formerly not His people—that this may now take place with regard to the- Gentiles, as it was announced to happen with regard to Israel,—and even more,— that Israel in this as in so many other things was the prophetic mirror in which God foreshewed on a small scale His future dealings with mankind, —or (2) he adduces them from mere applicability to the subject in hand, implying, ‘It has been with us Gentiles, as with Israel in the prophet Hosea.’ I own I much prefer the former of these, as more consonant with the dignity of the argument, and as apparently justified by the xai,—as He saith also in Hosea, implying perhaps that the matter in hand was not that directly prophesied in the citation, but one analogous to it. Chrys. takes the same view: εἰ yap. ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγνωμονησάντων μετὰ πολλὰς εὐεργεσίας, καὶ ἀλλοτριωθέντων, καὶ τὸ λαὸς εἶναι ἀπυλωλεκότων, τοσαύτη γέγονεν ἡ μετα- βολή, τί ἐκώλυε καὶ τοὺς οὐ μετὰ τὴν οἰκείωσιν ἀλλοτριωθέντας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἀρχῆς 24—30. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 413 tat υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος. 27 “Hoaias δὲ " κράζει " ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ *’Kav ἢ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ ὡς ἡ γ ἄμμος τῆς " θαλάσσης, τὸ "ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται. v Jobni. 15 al. w = 2 Cor. 1.6 vii. 4. Phil. sit 7 x Isa. x. 22, 23. 28 λό EG τς ς Σ ed : ye ὃ y a ae Ὁ > x. 8 only. λόγον yap * συντελῶν καὶ “4 συντέμνων [ἐν © δικαιοσύνῃ" 2,8 only. 4 ΄ ὰ ΄ , ΄ δὲν a a 12. see Heb. ὅτι λόγον “ συντετμημένον] ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. x12. i zas above (y). 29 καὶ καθὼς ' προείρηκεν Ησαΐας § Ei μὴ κύριος σαβαὼθ , Matt. vii. a here only. h2 , ο΄ κα , « τ' ᾽ὃ Ἀ 2 Θ \ Mic. v.7, 8al. ἐγκατελύπεν LY σπέρμα, ως «οοομᾷ ἂν eyeVv?) NMEV KAU ὃ constr. part., ὡς Γόμοῤῥα ἂν ' ὡμοιώθ 80 Κ Τί οὖν * ἐροῦμεν ; ὅτι « seis x23 ως ομορρα αν § μοιωσήμεν. υουν ερουμέν ; OTL nae Tea. ii. 17. Jer. vi. 11. Isa. xxviii. 22. ἃ here only. I. c. e Acts xvii. 31 reff. = 2 Pet. iii. 2. Jude 17 +. ΕἾΝ . ἃ; Ot h 2 Cor. iv. 9 reff. i = Acts xiv. 1l. Heb.ii.17. elsw. Mt. Mk. L. only. Ps. xxvii. 1. k ch, iii. 5 reff. [aft κληθ. ins ουτοι P: αὐτοι 71-3 arm. } 27. rec καταλειμμα (corrn to LXX where no MS has υπολ.), with DFKL[P] &-corr} rel Thdrt: ἐγκαταλειμμα Chr: υποκαταλειμμα 47: txt ABR! Eus,. 28. om ev δικαιοσυνη ott λογον συντετμήμενον (by mistake from similarity of συν- τεμνων and συντετμήμενον Ὁ) ABN! [471] Syr copt Eus, Damase Aug, (th has the ver thus: guia consummatum et precisum verbum enarret Deus in mundo: om συντελ. to Aoyoy Thdrt) : ins DFKL[P]&3 rel latt syr goth [arm(omg o7z) Euthal, | Kus, Chr, Gc Thl Jer Ambrst Bede. 29. εγκατελειπεν ΑΒΕ KL P nj. AFL[P Euthal-ms]. ἀλλοτρίους ὄντας, κληθῆναι, K. ὑπακού- σαντας τῶν αὐτῶν ἀξιωθῆναι ; Hom. xvi. p. 618. The fem. τήν is used because the Jewish people was typified by the daughter of the prophet, Hos. i. 6, who was called Lo-ruhamah, ‘not having obtained mercy.’ The sense, not the words of the LXX, is quoted. By ἐν τῷ tTémm.... ἐκεῖ must not I think be understood, in any particular place, as Judea, nor among any peculiar people, as the Christian Church: but as a general assertion, that in every place where they were called ‘not His people,’ there they shall be called ‘ His people.’ 27.| A proof from Scripture of the fact, that a part of Israel are excluded. Here again the analogy of God’s dealings, in the partial deliverance of Israel from captivity, and their great final deliverancefrom death eternal, is the key to the interpretation of the prophecy cited. The words are spoken by Isaiah of the return from captivity of a remnant of Israel. 28.] The refer- ence of this latter part of the citation is not very plain. It is almost verbatim from tle LXX, the γάρ (which is found in AN but not in B) being perhaps adopted by the Apostle as continuing the testimony, = ‘for the prophet proceeds, —and the LXX having κατάλειμμα for ὑπόλειμμα (see di- gest), and ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ὅλῃ for ἐπὶ τῆς yins. The literal rendering of the Heb. is, “ The consummation (or consumption) de- cided, overfloweth with righteousness: for a decision (or consumption) and a decree shall the Lord Jehovah of Sabaoth make in the midst of all the land.” As it stands in the LXX, the meaning seems to be, εγενηθεν B'(Tischdf). ομοιωθημεν the Lord will complete and soon fulfil His word in righteousness (viz. his denun- ciation of consuming the Assyrian and liberating the remnant of His people): for the Lord will make a rapidly accom- plished word in the midst of all the land. The E. V., Calv., and others, render λόγον, ‘ work,’ a signification which it never has. If the above interpretation be correct, and the view which I have taken of the analogy of prophecy, it will follow that this verse is adduced by the Apostle as confirming the certainty of the salvation of the remnant of Israel, seeing that now, as then, He with whom a thousand years are as a day, will swiftly accomplish His prophetic word in righteousness. 29. | Another proof of a remnant to be saved, from a preceding part of the same prophecy. (Such seenis to be the sense of προείρ. here,—and so Beza, Calv., Grot.,al.; De W., Thol.,al., pre- fer ‘ prophesied ;? but surely there is no ne- cessity for affixing an unusual sense to the word, where the ordinary one (see all the reff.) suits much better.) “ ὁμοιοῦσθαι ὡς is a construction in which two ideas, ‘to become as,’ and ‘to become like to,’ are mingled, as in Heb. 3 5v02, Ps. xlix. 18, 21; compare Mark iv. 30.” Tholuck. On ‘Jehovah Sabaoth,’ Bengel remarks, “ Pro Hebraico nx2g in libro 1 Sam. et Jesaia σαβαώθ ponitur ; in reliquis libris omnibus παντοκράτωρ. (This is not strictly the case: δυνάμεων is found in several places: and σαβαώθ occurs in Zech. xiii. 2 BN.) The citation is verbatim from the LXX, who have put σπέρμα tor the Heb. Ty, ‘residuum,’—implying ἃ renmant 414 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. ΙΧ. 1 = ch, xii. 13. ἔθνη τὰ μὴ ™ διώκοντα ™ δικαιοσύνην, " κατέλαβεν δικαιο- XIV. iv. "μι. ΄ / \ / \ titi σύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν 5 ἐκ πίστεως" 531 Ἰσραὴλ δὲ 1ess. Κ΄, ἰδ. δ 1 διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης, Peis νόμον οὐκ P41 ἔφθασεν. χχτίϊ. 8. m1 Tim. vi. 11. 2 Tim. ti. 22. ; n = 1 Cor. ix. 24. Phil. iii. 12. Exod. xv. 9. Deut. xxviii. 45. o=ch.x.6. Gal. ii. 8. Be PS Phil. iii. 16. Dan. xii. 12 Theod. qas above (p). ‘Thess. iv. 5. ν΄. ἄχρι, 2 Cor. x. 14. w. emt, Matt. xii. 28|jL. 1 Thess. ii. 16 only. Eccl. viii. 14. Dan. iv. 25 (28) Theod. (30. for την, της F.] 81. [δικαιοσ. bef 1st vouoy P: δικαιοσυνὴν omg vou. k 3] rec aft 2nd νόμον ins δικαιοσυνὴς (corrn for clearness’ sake? see notes), with F(but with a mark inserted hefore it) KL[P]X? rel D3-lat vulg syrr goth [arm Euthal-ms]} Chr, ‘hdor-mops, Thdrt (ec Thi Jer, Aug,: om ABDGN! [47] copt Procop, Damase Orig-int, Ambrst-comm Sedul.[—om ers vou. also o 17. ] for a fresh planting. 30—33.] The Apostle takes up again the fact of Israel’s failure, and shews how their own pursuit of righteousness never attained to right- eousness, being hindered by their self- vighteousness and rejection of Christ. These verses do not contain, as Chrys., (Ee., Theophyl., the τοῦ χωρίου παντὸς Avois—this λύσις is simply in the creative right of God, as declared ver. 18 ;—but they are a comment on ver. 16, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth ; the same similitude of running being here resumed, and it being shewn that, so far from man’s running having decided the matter, the Jews who pressed forward to the goal attained not, whereas the Gentiles, who never ran, have attained. If this is lost sight of, the connexion of the whole is much impaired, and from doctrinal prejudice, a wholly wrong turn given to the Apostle’s line of reasoning, — who resolves the awful fact of Israel’s ex- clusion not into any causes arising from man, but into the supreme will of God,— which will is here again distinctly asserted in the citation from Isaiah (see below). What then shall we say? ‘This ques- tion, when followed by a question, implies of course a rejection of the thought thus suggested-—but when, as here, by an asser- tion, introduces a further unfolding of the argument from what has preceded. I can- not agree with Flatt, Olsh., al., that ὅτι k.T.A. is to be regarded as a question: for, as Riickert has observed, (1) Paul could not put interrogatively, as a supposition in answer to Ti οὖν ἐροῦμεν, a sentiment not intimated in nor following from the fore- going; (2) there would be no answer to the question thus asked, but the διὰ τί, ver. 32, would ask another question, proceeding on the assumption of that which had been before by implication negatived ; and (3) the answer, ὅτι K.7.A. ver. 32, would touch only the case of the Jews, and not that of the Gentiles, also involved, on this suppo- sition, in the question. That the Gentiles (not, as Meyer and Fritz., ‘some Gentiles’), ν ᾽ which pursue not after (see especially reff εφθοχεν F(and 6), Phil.) righteousness (not justification, which is merely ‘the being accounted righteous,’ ‘the way in which righteous- ness is ascribed :’ not this, but righteous- ness itself, is the aim and end of the race) attainea to (the whole transaction being regarded as a historical fact) righteous- ness, even (δέ brings in something new, different from the foregoing, but not strongly opposed to it, see Winer, edn. 6. § 53. 7. b:—the opposition here, though fine and delicate, is remarkable: righteous- ness—not however that arising from their own works, but the righteousness, &c.) the righteousness which is of faith : 31.] —but Israel, pursuing after the law of righteousness (what is the νάμος δικαιο- avvns? Certainly not = δικαιοσύνη νόμου, as Chrys., Theodoret, (Xcum., Calv., Beza, Bengel, by the so-called, but as Thol. observes, unlogical figure of Hypallage :— it may mean either (1) as Meyer, Fritz., Thol., au zdeal law of righteousness, a Justifying law,—or (2) as Chrys., al.,—see above,—the law of Moses, thus described : or (3) which I believe to be the true account of the words, νόμος δικαιοσ'. is put regard- ing the Jews, rather than merely δικαιοσ., because in their case there was a prescribed norm of apparent righteousness, viz. the law, in which rule and way they, as matter of fact, followed after it. The above, as I believe, mistaken interpretations arise from supposing νόμον δικαιοσ. to be = δικαιοσ.» which it is not. The Jews followed after, aimed at the fulfilment of ‘the law of righteousness, thinking by the observance of that law to acquire righteousness. See ch. x. 3, 5, and note; and eompare John’s coming ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, Matt. xxi. 32), arrived not at [notice the change in the verb] the law (fell far short even of that law, which was given them. It is surprising, with ch. x. 3—5 before them, how De Wette and Tholuek can pronounce the reading νόμον without δικαιοσύνης to be without sense. The Jews followed after, thinking to perform it entirely, their νόμος δικαιοσύνης : which δικαίοσ. ἐκ τοῦ νόμου the Apostle defines, ch. x. 5, to ABDFE KL[P]x abcaf ghkl mnol7 [47] 91---ὐῦ, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 415 327 Oud TL; OTL οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ᾽ " ws ἐξ ἔργων [νόμου] τ Paul, 1 Cor 7 (bis 'προςέκοψαν τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ ἃ προςκόμματος, Vi. 33 καθὼς oe xi. i == Philem. 14. γέγραπται " Ἰδοῦ Oni ἐν Σιὼν λίθον "προςκόμματος i t Matt. iv. δ L. vii. 27. καὶ W πέτραν *X σκανδάλου, καὶ ὁ Y πιστεύων Y ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ a - καταισχυνθήσεται. uch. xiv. 13,20. 1 Cor. viii. 9. I Pet. il. 8 only. w ] Pet. ii. 8. (from 1. c.-A® Ald. pean : = Matt. xviii. 7. ch. xiv. 13 al. mo — Che Veo. ky bak 0. ch. xiv. 21. 1 Pet. ii. 8 only. Prov. iii. 23. Isa. xxix. 21. ΟΝ v Isa. (viii. 14) xxviii. 10, Ps. xlviii. 14. y ch. x. 11 sleet 6 Ps, xxiv. 20. 32. om vouov (see notes) ΑΒ ΕΝ [47-txt] vule copt [Orig- int 4] Jer, AUgsepe Ambrst : ins DKL[P 8° rel syrr goth [arm] Chr,(ov« εἶπεν ᾽Εξ ἔργων, ἀλλ᾽ Ὡς ἐξ ἔργων νόμου δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐδὲ ταύτην εἶχον τὴν See ae Thdor-mops, Thdrt [Damase] (ec Thi. mposexowyev X! |, προεκ. 0. | D3KL[P JX? τοὶ vulg [fuld] syrr Chr, Thdor-mops, Thdrt Aug, Jer, Sedul : rec aft mposexoWay ins yap (see note), with om AB D'[and lat] FR? al [47-txt | ἐσ h tol) copt goth [ Damase Orig-int, | Ambrst. 33. rec ins mas bef ο πιστευων (insd to conform this ver to ch x. 11, rather than omd to suit the LxxX: not one ms omits it in ch x. 11), with KL[P] rel D3-lat vulg syr [arm EKuthal-ms] Chr, Thdor-mops, Orig,[int, Cyr-p,] Damasec Aug, Ambrst. be ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς, but they did not attain to—not in this case κατέλαβεν, but ἔφθασεν eis—the law—they therefore never attained righte- ousness. It is surely far more easy to imagine how a transcriber should have in- serted δικαιοσύνης, than how he should have omitted it. It probably was a mar- ginal gloss to explain the second νόμον, and thence found its way into the text (1 may notice, that ch. x. 3 is not a case in point, the νόμον here having an inde- pendent and exceptional meaning of its own, which introduces an element not belonging to ἰδίαν there)). Wherefore? because (pursuing it) not by faith, but as (used subjectively, as ‘if about to obtain their object by: see Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 9, and compare 2 Pet. i. 3) by [the] works [of the law (the evidence for and against νόμου is about equally balanced. On the one side we have the Apostle’s usage, see ch. iii. 28 reff..—and the possibility of a transcriber omitting νόμου, either as having twice occurred already, or for more com- plete antithesis—and on the other we have the temptation to correct ἔργων to ἔργων νόμου to suit that very usage. On the whole I incline to omit νόμου, but do not regard the evidence as sufficiently clear to justify its exclusion from the text)], they stumbled at the stone of stumbling (the similitude of a race is still kept up. The insertion of ydp has arisen from a period being placed at νόμου. It confuses the sense, making it appear as if the stumbling was the cause of, or at all events coincident with, their pursuing οὐκ ἐκ π. K.T.A , whereas it was this mistaken method of pursuing which caused them to stumble against the stone of stumbling. Thus we have instances in the Greek Thdrt Jer, : om ABDFR [47] Syr copt “goth eeth ov μη καταισχυνθη (see LXX) DF. chariot races, of competitors, by an error in judgment in driving, striking against the στήλη round which the chariots were to turn, see Soph. Elect. 730 ἢ, There is a close analogy between our text and the exhortation in Heb. xii. 1 f. There, after the triumphs of faith have been re- lated, we are exhorted to run with patience the race set before us, looking to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith: where notice, that the sacred Writer seems to have had in his mind the same com- parison of Him to the pillar or goal, to which the eyes of the runners would be exclusively directed). 33.] Appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah, as justifying this comparison of Christ to a stone of stumbling. The citation is gathered from two places in Isaiah. The ‘stone of stum- bling and rock of offence,’ mentioned ch. vili. 14, is substituted for the ‘ corner-stone elect, precious,’ of ch. xxviii. 16. The solution of this is very simple. Isa. viii. 14 was evidently interpreted by the Jews themselves of the Messiah: for Simeon, Luke ii. 34, when speaking of the child Jesus as the Messiah, expressly adduces the prophecy as about to be fulfilled. Similarly Isa. xxvii. 16 was interpreted by the Chaldee Targum, the Babylonish Talmud (Tract Sanhedrin, fol. xxxviii. 1, Stuart), ὅς. What was there then to pre- vent the Apostle from giving to this Stone, plainly foretold as to be laid in Zion, that designation which prophecy also justifies, and which bears immediately on the matter here in hand? The translation of Isa. viii. 14 is after the Heb.,—the LXX having apparently read differently. See 1 Pet. ii. 6—8, where the same two si are joined, and also Ps. exviii. (exvii.) 2 ov καταισχυνθήσεται, LXX (Isa. ae 16), 410 a = here only. Sir. xviii. 31. Jude 21. ς Acts xxii. 5. Gal. iv. 15. Col. iv. 13. d = Johnii. 17, from Ps. Ixviil. 9. 2 Cor. vii. 7, 11 f » | ’ ᾿ ov kat δεπίγνωσιν. ΠΡῸΣ .- POMAIOT®S: Χ; X. ΟΑδελφοί, ἡ μὲν ὃ εὐδοκία τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας καὶ Matt. xi.28 9 δέησις πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ὃ εἰς σωτηρίαν. 5. μαρτυρῶ γὰρ αὐτοῖς ὅτι 4" ζῆλον " θεοῦ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ δ.» ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ | θεοῦ ἱ δικαιοσύνην, καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν [δικαιοσύνην] * ζητοῦντες ἱστῆσαι, τῇ ἰ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ ᾿θεοῦ οὐχ ™ ὑπετάγησαν. e 2 Cor. xi. 2. see Acts xxii. 3. f Acts iii. 17 reff. g ch. iii. 20 reff. h Acts xiii. 27 reff. ich. i. 17 reff. k = Acts xili 8 reff. 1= ch. iii. 31. Heb. x.9. Num. xxx. 14. m = 1 Cor. xv. 28. 2 Macc. xiii. 23. see ch. viii. 7 reff. Cuap. X. 1. ree aft ἢ Senois ins ἡ (corrn: see note), with KL rel Chr Thdrt [ Euthal-ms Damasc: μου P]: om ABDFR [47 arm]. rec for autwy, Tov ἰσραηλ (explanatory gloss), with KL rel an erasure by δὲ], προς Tov θν is written over Thdrt Ge Thi: txt ABDF[P]8 17 [47-txt] latt syrr copt arm Chr, Cyr[-c] Damase [ Orig-int, | Ambrst Augsepe Pel Sedul Bede. rec ins ἐστιν bef εἰς σωτηριαν, with ΚΙΓΡΊΝ rel syr Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Thl @c]: om ABDFR! [47-txt] Syr goth [ (eth) arm] Cyr[-c Damasc] Aug). 3. for yap, δε A 57 Leo. Clem, Cyr{-p,] Bas, Chr, Procop, Damasc [Ambrst | Augszpe : om 2nd δικαιοσυνην ABD[P 47-txt] vulg copt arm ins FKLN rel [D-lat'] syrr goth eth Chr, Thdrt Ge Thi [ Orig-int, | Iren{-int, |-mss Tert, Ambr, Aug,, and yrr ¢ 4 g-int, | 1 1 1 AUS. att ζητουντες m. ov μὴ καταισχυνθῇ, gives a secondary meaning of the Heb. wm x%, ‘shall not make haste: 1. 6. shall not fly in terror, shall not be confounded. Cuap. X. 1—138.] The Jews, though zealous for God, are yet ignorant of God’s righteousness (1—3), as revealed to them in their own Seriptures (4—18). 1.1 Brethren (‘nunc quasi superata pre- cedentis tractationis severitate coiiter appellat fratres.’ Bengel), the inclination of my heart (εὐδοκία is seldom, if ever, used to signify the motion of desire, but imports the rest of approving satisfaction. Pos- sibly there is here a mixture of construc- tions: the Apostle’s εὐδοκία would be their salvation itself,—his δέησις πρὸς τὸν θ. ὑπὲρ αὐτ. was εἰς σωτ. The μέν re- quires a corresponding δέ, not expressed, but implied in the course of vv. 2, 3, where the obstacle to their σωτήρ. is brought out), and my supplication to God on their behalf (Israel, see cli. ix. 32, mposexopav), (is) for (their) salvation (lit. ‘towards salvation.’ The insertion of the art. after δέησις has apparently been an over- careful grammatical correction: it is by no means universal in the N. 'T’., even where the Greek writers insert it,—and here, seeing that there could be no δεήσεις to any other than God, the omission would be more natural. τοῦ Ἰσραήλ has been substituted by the adoption of a gloss: ἐστίν to complete the sense). The Apostle’s meaning seems to be, to destroy any im- pression which his readers may have re- ceived unfavourable to his love of his own people, from the stern argument of the former chapter. 2. For (reason why 1 thus sympathize with their efforts, though misdirected) I bear witness to them that they have a zeal for God (for this meaning of the gen. see reff., especially 2 Cor. xi. 2, and note there), but not according to (in accordance with, founded upon, and carried on with) Knowledge (accurate apprehen- sion of the way of righteousness as revealed to them). 8.] For (explanation of ov κατ᾽ ἐπίγν.) not recognizing (‘ being ignorant of’ is liable to the objection, that it may represent to the reader a state of excusable ignorance, whereas they had it before them, and overlooked it) the righteousness of God (not, the way of justification appointed by God, as Stuart, al.: but that only righteousness which avails before God, which becomes ours in justification ; see De Wette’s note, quoted on ch. i. 17), and seeking to set up their own righteousness (again, not justifica- tion, but righteousness: that, namely, de- scribed ver. 5; not that it was ever theirs, but the Apostle speaks subjectively. Not- withstanding the Ms. authority against δικαι. after ἰδίαν, it would seem as if it had been written for emphasis’ sake by the Apostle, and omitted on account of the word occurring thrice in the sentence), they were not subjected (historical: implying, but not itself bearing, a perfect sense. The passage,—not in a middle sense, as De Wette and Thol.,—expresses the result only ; it might be themselves, or it might be some other, that subjected them,—but the historical fact was, that they were not subjected) to the righteousness of God (the dcx. τ. θ. being considered as a rude or method, to which it was necessary to con- form, but to which they were never sub- jected as they were to the law of Moses), ABDF KL[P jx abcdf ghkl mnol7 [11] ]--ῦ. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 417 4. π aN \ , x b.? ὃ ΄, ‘ a TEAOS yap νομου χρίιστος εις ὑκαιοσυνην TAVTL TW n = 1 Pet. i. 9. πιστεύοντι. fe) ΄ \ ΄ 5 Μωυσῆς γὰρ “5 γράφει τὴν Ρ δικαιοσύνην \ le “ e ΄ ΄ τὴν Ῥέκ Ῥνόμου, “ ὅτι 0 ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται p Phil. iii. (6) 9. see Gal. iii. 21. see note and 2 Cor. iii. 13. o constr., John 1.46. see Luke xviii, q Lev. xviii. 5. see Neh. ix. 29; Ezek. xx. 21, 5. rec ins tov bef vouov, with DFKL[P] rel [arm Chr Thdrt Damasc]: om (A)BN. —for vouov, πιστεως A. Ambrst Cassiod, ]. om ανθρωπος F Syr Chr, Hil. 4—13.] The δικαιοσύνη τ. θ. is now explained to be summed up in that Saviour who was declared to them in their own Scriptures. For (establishing what was last said, and at the same time unfolding the δικ. τ. θ. in a form which rendered them inexcusable for its non-recognition) Christ is the end of the Law (i. e. the object at which the law aimed: see -the similar expression 1 Tim. i. 5, τὸ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη. Various meanings have been given to τέλος. (1) End, tinis, chronological: ‘Christ is the termination of the law. So the latt., Augustine, Luther, al., Olsh., Mever, Fritz., De Wette, al. But this meaning, unless understood in its pregnant sense, that Christ, who has succeeded to the law, was also the object and aim of the law, says too little. In this pregnant sense Tholuck takes the word ‘end,’ the end in time and in aim. It may beso; but I prefer simply to take in the idea of Christ being the end, i. e. aim of the law, as borne out by the following citations, in which nothing is said of the transitoriness of the law, but much of the notices which it contains of right- eousness by faith in Christ. (2) Clem. ΑἸοχ., --- πλήρωμα yap v. xp. εἰς δικ. π. τῷ mot., De Div. Serv. § 9, p. 940 P. Theodoret, Calv., Grot., al., take τέλος for “ accomplishment,’ a sense included in the general meaning, but not especially treated here,—the following quotations not having any reference to it. (8) The meaning, end in the sense of object or aim, above adopted, is that of the Syr., Chrys., Theophy]l., Beza, Bengel, al. Chrys. observes: εἰ yap τοῦ νόμου τέλος ὃ χριστός, ὃ τὸν χριστὸν οὐκ ἔχων, κἂν ἐκείνην (1. 6. δικαιοσύνην) δοκῇ ἔχειν, οὐκ ἔχει: ὁ δὲ τὸν χριστὸν ἔχων, κἂν μὴ ἢ κατωρθωκὼς τὸν νόμον, τὸ πᾶν εἴληφε. καὶ γὰρ τέλος ἰατρικῆς ὑγιεία. ὥςπερ οὖν 6 δυνάμενος ὑγιῆ ποιεῖν, κἂν μὴ τὴν ἰατρικὴν ἔχῃ, τὸ πᾶν ἔχει. ὁ δὲ μὴ εἰδὼς θεραπεύειν, κἂν μετιέναι δοκῇ τὴν τέχνην, τοῦ παντὸς ἐξέπεσεν: οὕτω ἐπὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῆς πίστεως, ὁ μὲν ταύτην ἔχων, καὶ τὸ ἐκείνου τέλος ἔχει" 6 δὲ ταύ- τῆς ἔξω ὥν, ἀμφοτέρων ἐστὶν ἀλλότριος. Hom. xvii. p. 622. νόμου is here plainly the law of Moses: see Middleton in loc.) Vou. LI, ott bef τ. dix. τ. εκ v. ADIN! 17! vulg Damase [Orig-int, om αὑτὰ (as LXX-AB(not Ed-vat [&c])) A D-gr δὲ} vulg Damase [Orig-int,]: eam D?-lat copt[-wilk] goth Cassiod, : ταυτα 17! m! eth. unto righteousness (1. 6. 50 asto bringabout righteousness, which the law could not do) to (dat. commodi) every one that believeth. ** Had they only used the law, instead of abusing it, it would have been their best preparation for the Saviour’s advent. For indeed, by reason of man’s natural weak- ness, it was always powerless to justify. It was never intended to make the sinner righteous before God; but rather to impart to him a knowledge of his sinfulness, and to awaken in his heart earnest longings for some powerful deliverer. Thus used, it would have ensured the reception of the Messiah by those who now reject Him. Striving to attain to real holiness, and increasingly conscious of the impossibility of becoming holy by an imperfect obedience tothe law’s requirements, they would gladly have recognized the Saviour as the end of the law for righteousness.” Ewbank. 5.] For (proof of the impossibility of legal righteousness, as declared even in the law itself) Moses describes (reff.) the righte- ousness which is of (abstr.—not implying that it has ever been attained, but rather presupposing the contrary) the law, that (ὅτι recitantis, not γράφ. ὅτι, in which case we should have αὐτήν. The eam of some versions has apparently arisen from mis- understanding ὅτι) the man who hath done them (the ordinances of the law) shall live in (in the strength of, by means of, as his status) it (the righteous- ness accruing by such doing of them). As regards the life here promised, the Jewish interpreters themselves included in it morethan mereearthly felicity inCanaan, and extended their view to a better life hereafter: see Wetst.inloc. Earthly feli- city it doubtless did impart, compare Deut. xxx. 20; but even there, as Thol. observes, ‘ life’ seems to be a general promise, and length of days a particular species of felicity. “In the N. T.,” he continues, ‘this idea (of life) is always exalted into that of life blessed and eternal :—see Matt. vil. 14; xviii. 8, 9; Luke x. 28.” 6—8.] The righteousness whieh is of faith is described, in the words spoken in Scrip- ture by Moses of the commandment given by. him,—as not dependent.on a long and EE 4.18 HPO POMAIOT®2. X: coh. ἐν αὐτῇ. ὅ ἡ δὲ "ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτως λέγει, oo Gal. iii. 8. MA εἶ ξ bs « Devi. 23%. 5 Μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου Tis ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν abedt πον ἐδ » Ν lal ἕξ tacit — οὐρανόν ; " τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν χριστὸν " καταγαγεῖν" 77 Tis m πον Ὁ = ch. 1x. 8. y Acts xxiii. 15 reff. rec (for avrn) αὐτοῖς (from LxX), with DFL[KP]N§ rel [syrr_arm(Treg) Chr, Thdrt Ambrst]: txt ABN! 17 [47] vulg D?-lat copt goth arm[-ed-ven(Sz) Orig-int,] Damase Pel Sedul Bede. difficult process of search, but near to every man, and in every man’s power to attain. I believe the account of the follow- ing citation will be best found by bearing in mind that the Apostle is speaking of Christ as the end of the law tor righteous- ness to the believer. He takes as a con- firmation of this, a passage occurring in a prophetic part of Deut., where Moses is foretelling to the Jews the consequences of rejecting God’s law, and His mercy to them even when under chastisement, if they would return to Him. He then describes the law in nearly the words cited in this verse. Now the Apostle, regarding Christ as the end of the law, its great central aim and object, quotes these words not merely as suiting his purpose, but as bearing, where originally used, an ἃ fortiori applica- tion to faith in Him who is the end of the law, and to the commandment to believe in Him, which (1 John iii. 23) is now ‘ God’s commandment.’ If spoken of the law as a manifestation of God in man’s heart and mouth, much more were they spoken of Him, who is God manifest in the flesh, the end of the law and the prophets. This view is, it is true, different from that of almost all eminent Commentators, ancient and modern,—who regard the words as merely adapted or parodied by the Apostle as suiting his present purpose. Thus, with minor shades of difference, Chrys., Beza, Grot., Vatabl., Luther, Wolf, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, De Wette, Thol., Stuart, Hodge,al. But we must remember that it is in this passage Paul’s object not merely to deseribe the righteousness which is of faith in Christ, but to shew it described already in the words of the law, The Commentators who have taken more or less the view that the Apostle cites the words as bearing the sense put on them, are Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Olsh. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise (personified, as Wis- dom in the Prov.), Say not in thine heart (i-e. ‘think not,’ a Heb. idiom. The LXX has merely λέγων, Wx). The Apostle cites freely, giving the explanation of λέγων, viz. thinking), Who shall go up to heaven (LXX, avaB. ἡμῖν( ἡμῶν, A) eis τ. οὐρ., see Prov. xxx. 4) !—that is (see note above :— that imports in its full and unfolded mean- ing), to bring down Christ :—or who shall go down into the abyss (LXX, ris διαπε- pacer ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ; The Apostle substitutes τίς κατ. εἰς τ. ἄβ. as the direct contrast to τίς av. εἰς τ. ovp., as in ref. Ps.; see also Amos ix. 2:—and as better suiting the interpretation which follows) ?—that is, to bring up Christ from the dead. There is some difficulty in assign- ing the precise view with which the Apostle introduces these questions. Tholuck re- marks, “ The different interpretations may be reduced to this, that the questions are regarded either (1) as questions of unbelief, or (2) as questions of embarrassment, or (3) as questions of anwiety.” The first view is represented by De Wette, who says, “In what sense these questions, from which the righteousness which is of faith dis- suades men, are to be taken, is plain from ver. 9, where the Resurrection of Christ is asserted as the one most weighty point of historical Christian belief :—they would be arate of unbelief, which regards this uct as not accomplished, or as now first to be accomplished. Thus also, probably, are we to understand the first question, as applying to the Incarnation of Christ.” This is more or less also the view of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Ec., Erasm., Estius, Semler, Koppe, Meyer, al., Riickert (who refers the doubt or the unbelief to the full accomplishment of redemption by the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ), Reiche, and KGllner (who refer catay. to the ascended Saviour, thereby destroying the symmetry of the whole,—because the latter question undoubtedly refers to bring- ing Christ not from a present but from a past state, from which He has historically come). (2) The second view, that they are questions of embarrassment, is taken by L. Capellus, Wolf, Rosenm., and Stuart, which last says, “The whole (of Moses’s saying) may be summed up in one word, omitting all figurative expression: viz. the commandment is plain and accessible. You can have, therefore, no excuse for neglect- ing it. Soin the case before us. Justi- fication by faith in Christ is a plain and intelligible doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious language.... It is like what Moses says of the statutes which he gave to Israel, plain, intelligible,accessible .... 6—9. , > Ά Ua ᾽ Ν Ρ Υ καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ; "ἃ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ΡΟΣ — Eph. is. ἐκ νεκρῶν γ᾽ ἀναγαγεῖν. εὐ can / »" 7 co , τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν, ἐν τῷ στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου" mF lj \ en wn υ τρῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸ ὃ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ xxix. 3. : i. 25. (John vi. 63. xiv. 10, plur.) ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. z Deut. xxx. 14. constr., John iii. 23. vi. 19, 23. 419 Ps. CXXXVili. 8. 8 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ; Ξ Ἔνγγύς σοῦ x Luke viii. 31 only, exc. Rev. ix. l, y 9 ΡῈ 4 ll pe Ἢ en. i. 2. κηρύσσομεν OTL τ ΠΡ xiii a 20: . Ps: a= Acts x. 37.. 1 Pet. * 8. aft λέγει ins ἡ γραφη Ὁ [17] vulg(not demid tol) [arm] Orig,[-int, ] Cyr[-p,(om,)] 1 Thdrt Hil, Ambrst Pel Sedul Bede: aft τι, F [copt eth]. st ἐστιν bef lst ra pnua (see LXX) DF [vulg goth arm Orig-int, Hil, Ambrst]. It is brought before the mind and heart of every man: and thus he is without excuse for unbelief.’ (3) The third view, that they are questions of anxiety, is that of Calv., Beza, Pisc., Bengel, Knapp, Fritz., and Tholuck:—by none perhaps better expressed than by Ewbank, Comm. on the Ep. to the Rom., Ρ. 74 : “ Personifying the great Christian doctrine of free justification through faith, he represents it as addressing every man who is anxious to obtain salva- tion, in the encouraging words of Moses: ‘Say not in thine heart, (it says to such an one) τοῦς |... ? In other words, ‘ Let not the man, who sighs for deliverance from his own sinfulness, suppose that the accom- plishment of some impossible task is re- ᾿ quired of him, in order to enjoy the bless- ings of the Gospel. Let him not think that the personal presence of the Messiah is necessary to ensure his salvation. Christ needs not to be brought down from heaven, or up from the abyss, to impart to him forgiveness and holiness. No. Our Chris- tian message contains no impossibilities. We do not mock the sinner by offering him happiness on conditions which we know that he is powerless to fulfil. We tell him that Christ’s word is near to him: so near, that he may speak of it with his mouth, and meditate on it with his heart..... Is there any thing above human power in such a confession, and in such a belief? Surely not. It is graciously adapted to the necessity of the very weakest and most sin- ful of God’s creatures.” [I will now take up the three views afresh, and state the objections.] (1) The objection to this view, as alleged by Tholuck, is, that in it, the contrast with ver. 5 is lost sight of. And this is so far just, that it must be confessed we thus lose the ideas which the Apostle evidently intended us to grasp, those of insuperable difficulty in the ac- quisition of righteousness by the law, and of facility,—by the gospel. Also,—it puts too forward the allegation of the great matters of historical belief, which are not here the central point of the argument, but introduced as the objects which faith, itself that central point, apprehends. (2) The last objection has some force as against this view. The regarding the questions as mere questions of difficulty and intellectual bewilderment does not adequately repre- sent the ζῆλος θεοῦ predicated of the Jews, on the assumption of which the whole pas- sage proceeds. Here, however, it seems to me, we have more truth than in (1): for the plainness and simplicity of the truth to be believed is unquestionably one most im- portant element in the righteousness which is of faith. (8) Here we have the im- portant element just mentioned, not indeed made the prominent point of the questions, but, as it appears to me, properly and suffi- ciently kept in view. The anxious follower after righteousness is not disappointed by an impracticable code, nor mocked by an unintelligible revelation: the word is near him, therefore accessible ; plain and sim- ple, and therefore apprehensible; and, taking (1) into account, we may fairly add, —deals with definite historical fact, and therefore certain: so that his salvation is not contingent on an amount of perform- ance which is beyond him, and therefore inaccessible: irrational, and therefore in- apprehensible: undefined, and therefore involved in uncertainty. Thus, it seems to me, we satisfy all the conditions of the argument: and thus also it is clearly brought out, that the words themselves could never have been spoken by Moses of the righteousness which is-of the law, but of that which is of fazth. — 8.1 But what says it? The word 1s near thee, in thy mouth (to confess), and in thine heart (to believe): that is (see above), the word of faith (which forms the substratum and object of faith, see Gal. 11. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 6) which we (ministers of Christ: or perhaps, I Paul) preach. This verse has been explained in dealing with vv. 6 and 7. 9.] Because (explanation of the word being near thee: so Thol., De Wette, Stuart, al. Others take ὅτε here as in ver. 5, merely recitantis, making ἐὰν k.7.A. the ῥῆμα preached. But as Thol. observes, (1) the duty of confessing the Lord Jesus can hardly be called part of the contents of the preaching of faith, but the prominence EE 2 " 4 420 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. a oN b * ’ c 2 A ¢ , / / ’ a b=Johnix, ἐὰν » ὁμολογήσῃς “ἐν τῷ “στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν, 22. xii. 42. ὃ ᾿ 3 - ᾿ ἷ Ε Acts siti. καὶ ἃ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου “ὅτι ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν εξ ch. χν. 6 e 2 = ΄ = / \ ΄ only. ἦς, ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ: 10 καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται ΧΧχΧΥ . de > , / \ ¢ a dactsix.26 Fels δικαιοσύνην, στόματι δὲ " ὁμολογεῖται ἴ εἰς σωτηρίαν. rei. = ,ὔ \ ς \ “ « / ᾿ 8 A oar” 11 reyes yap ἡ γραφὴ Ilds ὁ ἢ πιστεύων ἐπ αὐτῷ ov f vv. 1, 4. h , 12 > ΄ ᾿ i \ > g sing. ch. ix καταισχυνθήσεται. lov yap ἐστιν ἱ διαστολὴ ᾿Ιου- (ren, h ch, ix. 33, : ἡ a ae ; are , 4 fram in daiov τε καὶ “EXAnvoss ὁ yap αὐτὸς κύριος πάντων “iii. 16. κα > , \ f , vee Sir.ii.10. Κ πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ' ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν. ich. iii. 22. 4 ca xiv. 7 only. =: Exod. viii. 23. k = Luke xii. 21. 1 Tim. vi. 18. Exod. xxx. 15. 1 Acts ii. 21 reff. JOEL ii. 32. 9. aft ομολογησὴς ins To pnua Β 71 Clem,. B Clem, Cyr[-p(sometimes omg o71)]: so, addg ἐστιν, copt Hil Aug. πιστευεις P: -cers m, ots 17.] αὐτὸν Ab k ὁ [arm Clem, ] Cyr-jer, Cyrsepe[-p]- ins xpiorov A Bas[-ed(omg κυρ.). (10. for στόματι, στομα P m. | for kuptoy inoour, οτι κυριος ιησους aft ἤσουν nyepev bef 11. ins μη bef καταισχυνθησεται (see ch ix. 23 v. r.) DF. 12. ιουδαιω και ελληνι D[-gr]. given to that duty shews a reference to the words of Moses: (2) the making ὅτι render a reason for ἐγγύς σου «.T.A. suits much better the context and form of the passage : (3) the fact of the confession with the mouth standing first, also shews a reference to what has gone before: for when the Apostle brings his own arrangement in ver. 10, he puts, as natural, the belief of the heart first), if thou shalt confess with thy mouth (same order as ver. 8) the Lord Jesus (not, I think, ‘Jesus as the Lord’ (see the readg of B al.): this might very weil be,—and κύριον might, as Thol., be the predicate placed first for emphasis, did not Paul fre- quently use κύριος Ἰησοῦς for ‘the Lord Jesus,’—-see (ch. xiv. 14 after a prep.) 1 Cor. i. 3 al.; Phil. (ii. 19) iii. 20; Col. iii. 17 (1 Thess. i.1; iv. 1). 1 Cor. xii. 3 is hardly an example on the other side: see note there, but 2 Cor. iv. 5 is, cf. note there), and believe in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead (here, as in 1 Cor. xv. 14, 16, 17, regarded as the great central fact of redemption), thou shalt be saved (inherit eternal life). Here we have the two parts of the above question again introduced: the confession of the Lord Jesus implying his having come down from heaven, and the belief in His resurrection implying His having been brought up from the dead. 10.] For (refers back to ver. 6, where the above words were ascribed to ἡ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιο- σύνη, and explains how πιστεύσ. ἐν τῇ καρδ. refer to the acquiring of righteous- ness) with the heart faith is exercised (πιστεύεται, men believe) unto (so as to be available to the acquisition of) right- eousness, but (q. d. ‘not only so: but there must be an outward confession, in order for justification to be carried forward to salvation’) with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Clearly the ‘words dix. and owr. are not used here, as De W.., al., merely as different terms for the same thing, for the sake of the paral- lelism: but as Thol. quotes from Crell., owr. is the ‘terminus ultimus et apex justificationis,’ consequent not merely on the act of justifying faith as the other, but on a good confession before the worl, maintained unto the end. 11.] For (proof of the former part of ver. 10) the Scripture saith, Every ove who believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. πᾶς is neither in the LXX nor the Heb., but is implied in the indefinite participle. The Apostle seems to use it here as taking up παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, ver. 4. See ch. 1x. 33. 12.| For (an explanation of the strong expression was ὁ πιστεύων, as im- plying the wniversal offer of the riches of God’s merey in Christ) there is no dis- tinction of Jew and Greek (Gentile. See ch. iii. 22); for the same Lord of all (viz. Christ, who is the subject here: vv. 9, 11, 13 cannot be separated. So Orig., Chrys., (£c., Calov., Wolf, Bengel, Riick., Meyer, Fritz., De Wette, Tholuck, al. So πάντων κύριος of Christ, Acts x. 36. Most modern Commentators make ὁ αὐτός the subject, and κύριος the predicate. But I prefer the usual rendering, both on account of the strangeness of 6 αὐτός thus standing alone, and because this Apostle uses the expres- sion 6 αὐτὸς κύριος, 1 Cor. xii. 5, and even ὁ αὐτὸς θεός, ib. 6, for ‘the same Lord,’ and ‘it is the same God.’ Stuart supplies, ‘(there is) the same Lord: but this is harsh,—and unnecessary, if the participle πλουτῶν be taken as συντελῶν κ. συντ. in ch. ix, 28) is rich towards all (‘by eis is signified the direction in which the ABDF KL[PJx abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] un αλω- Voce :σ ΠῈ L(P]x rcdf hk] no 17 47] 10—16. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 42] 13 la} \ ἃ x be? , \ v , πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἰἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου monte ἢ. σωθήσεται. 1: πῶς οὖν ᾿ἐπικαλέσωνται πὶ εἰς ὃν οὐκ Tea Dies n 2 7, A δὲ ΄ ΠῚ κ᾿ ’ o 2 a ἐπίστευσαν ; πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν ἃ οὗ οὐκ ° ἤκουσαν; tol Ν \ tA A \ , πῶς δὲ ἀκούσωσιν χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος ; 15 πῶς δὲ κηρύξ- λιξζομένων ἀγαθά. ἅ σου κλύω. Ἢ n w. εἰς, Acts x. 43 reff. o = w. gen., \ ἧς 9) a θὰ , ‘Oo Pre - here only wow ἐὰν μὴ ἀποσταλῶσιν ; καθὼς γέγραπται ‘Os P ὡραῖοι Xen. Mem e a , ἌΡ A , ili. 5. 9. οἱ πόδες τῶν [* εὐωγγελιζομένων * εἰρήνην, τῶν] 4 εὐαγγε- Hom. Od. a . see ΄ ens τ a 16”’AXN οὐ πάντες ὅ" ὑπήκουσαν τῷ δεῖ» xxi 16. « P τ ties ren. - lii. 7.) q = Lukei. 19. ii. 10. r Acts x. 36 reff. s Acts vi. 7 reff. 14, rec επικαλεσονται (see note), with KL[P] rel Clem, [Ath, Euthal-ms] Thdor- mops, Chr, Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] Gc: txt ABDFR a. rec πιστευσουσιν, with AKL rel Clem, [Ps-]|Ath Chr{-montf Euthal-ms}] Thdrt Damasc Th] Ge: txt BD F[-gr(emor.) ΡΊΝ Chr-ms,. [Syr arm Ambrst]. ins 7 bef Ist πως δε F latt rec akov- σουσιν, with L rel Clem, [Ath,] Chr-montf, Thdrt ΤῊ] Ge : ἀκουσονται DFKR'| P 47 | ἃ Damasc: txt ΑΞ ΒΝ 8 m 17 Chr-2-inss. (A! illegible.) [for xwpis, avev P. | 15. rec κηρυξουσιν, with rel Clem, Chr[-montf,] Thdrt Damase: [εἸκηρυσσουσιν F[-gr]: B: καθα Chr-ms. ακουσωσιν c: txt ΑΒΌΚΠΓΡ δα a 17 Chr-2-mss, { Euthal-ms]. καθαπερ om ευαγγελιζομενων εἰρηνὴν των (homeotel) ABCR? [47-txt |] coptt eth Clem, Orig,[-int, Euthal,] Epiph, (Thdor-mops,) Damasc: ins D(F)KL[P 8s rel Jatt syrr goth arm Chr, Thdrt ‘hl Gc Tert; Ambr, Jer, Hil,.—om τῶν F.—evang. bona evang. pacem Iren-int Tert, Hil,—om evang. bona Epiph, Hil,. rec Ins Ta, bef ἀγαθα, with D?3KLN! rel Clem, Chr, [Euthal,(and ms} Thdrt: om [as 1xx] ABCD! FR3/P 47-txt Eus,] Orig, Damasc. 16. aft υπηκουσαν ins εν (but marked for erasure) δὲ]. stream of grace rushes forth.’ Olsh.) who call upon Him. 13—21.] Proof _ from Scripture of this assertion, and ar- gument thereon. 13.| For every one, whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord (JEHovAH,—but used here of Christ beyond a doubt, as the next verse shews. There is hardly a stronger proof, or one more irrefragable by those who deny the Godhead of our Blessed Lord, of the unhesitating application to Him by the Apostle of the name and attributes of Jehovah) shall be saved. 14, 15.} It has been much doubted to whom these questions refer,—to Jews or to Gentiles ἢ It must, I think, be answered, Zo neither exclusiwely. They are generalized by the πᾶς ὃς ἄν of the preceding verse, to mean all, both Jews and Gentiles. And the inference in what follows, though mainly concerning the rejection of the unbelieving Jews, has regard also to the reception of the Gentiles: see below on vv. 19, 20. At the same time, as Meyer remarks, “the necessity of the Gospel ἀποστολή must first be laid down, in order to bring out in strong contrast the disobedience of some.” How then (i.e. posito, that the foregoing is so) can they(men, represented by the πᾶς ὃς ἄν of ver. 13) call on (I have followed the majority of the chief Mss. in reading the aor. subjunctive in- stead of the future indic. So also ch. vi. 1) Him in whom they have not be- lieved (i. e. begun to believe: so ch. xiii. 11)? But how can they believe (in Him) of whom they have not heard (ccnstruction see reff.)? But how can they hear without a preacher? But how can men preach unless they shall have been sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who [publish glad tidings of peace, who] publish glad tidings of (ra is ex- cluded by the strong manuscript testimony against it) good things. The Apostle is shewing the necessity and dignity of the preachers of the word, which leads on tothe uniwersality of their preaching, leaving all who disobey it withoutexcuse. He there- fore cites this, as shewing that their instru- mentality was one recognized in the pro- phetic word, where their office is described and glorified. The applicability of these words to the preachers of the Gospel is evident from the passage in Isaiah itself, which is spoken indeed of the return froin captivity, but in that return has regard to amore glorious one under the future Re- deemer. We need not therefore say that the Apostle uses Scripture words merely as expressing his own thoughts in a well- known garb ;—he alleges the words as a prophetic description of the preachers of whom he is writing. 16.} In this preaching of the Gospel some have been found obedient, others disobedient: and this was before announced by Isaiah. The persons here meant are as yet kept in- definite,—but evidently the Apostle has in his mind the unbelieving Jews, about whom his main discourse is employed. But not all hearkened to (historic: dur- 4.22 b oi ὔ t=Johnxii, EVAYYVEALO. 38, from Isa. liii. 1. 1 Thess. ii. 13. Heb. iv. 2. u Gal. iii. 2, 5. v here only. see John vy. Y ῥήματος " χριστοῦ. 47. Acts xi. 16. Ἢ ch. xi. 1,11. x here bis. 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5. xi. 22 only. P. J al Cor. xiv. 7 only. Ps. 1. c. il. § al. fr. iii. 10. xv. 9. xvi. 14 only. » nw avuTOV. Wisd. xix. 18 only. Pa Uxx1..0- 17. [aft apa ins ovy F m sah.] ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. y (Luke xi. 28 v. r.) ch. ix. 20 only t. X. Ἥσαΐϊ \ x, / K 4 ’ bl / a as yap λέγει Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ taxon ἡμῶν ; Ἰΐ ἄρα ἡ πίστις " ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ 18 ἀλλὰ γ᾽ λέγω, * μὴ " οὐκ ἤκουσαν ; Υ μενοῦνγε “εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν " ἐξῆλθεν ὁ * φθόγγος αὐτῶν, καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς “ οἰκουμένης τὰ ῥήματα 19 ἀλλὰ * λέγω, * μὴ Ἰσραὴλ * οὐκ ἔγνω; πρῶτος z Matt. ix. 26. Mark 1. 28, Psa. xviii. 4. Ὁ = Matt. xii. 42. Luke xi. 31 (Heb. vi. 16 only. Ps. ce Paul here only. Matt. xxiv. 14. Luke ἰϊ. 1 412, Acts xi. 28al4. Heb.i.6. 11. 6. Rev. rec (for xpiorov) θεου, with A D?-3[-gr] KL[P] X-corr'3 rel syrr zth-pl Clem, [Ps-]Ath, Thdor-mops, Chr, Thdrt Damase Sedul : Dei Christi [Ps-]Bede: [om F Hil,:] txt BCD!X? [47-txt] vulg coptt goth xth-rom [arm Orig-int,] Ambrst Aug, Pel. 18. om μενουνγε F D!-lat [Orig-int, ]. aft macay ins yap D}(and lat’). 19. rec οὐκ eyvw bef iopana (corra for elegance 9), with D*L rel syrr Thdrt Thi: txt ing the preaching) the glad tidings (οὐ πάντες, because πάντες, see vv. 11—13, were the objects of the preaching, and must hearken to it if they would be saved) :— (and this too was no unlooked-for thing, but predetermined in the divine counsel) for Esaias saith, Lord (κύριε is not in the Heb.), who believed the hearing of us [(i.e. as in our Version, | our report) ? 17.] Faith then (conclusion from ver. 16, τίς ἐπίστ. τῇ ἀκοῇ) is from hearing (the publication of the Gospel produces belief in it), and the hearing (the effect of the publication of the Gospel) is by means of (not, ‘in obedience to,’ but ‘by,’ as its instrument and vehicle) the word of Christ (θεοῦ has probably been a rationalizing correction, to suit better the sense of the prophecy. ῥήματος is used possibly, as De Wette suggests, as a preparation for τὰ ῥήματα avr. in ver. 18). 18.] But (in anticipation of an objection that Israel, whom he has especially in view, had not sufficiently heard the good tidings) I say, Did they not hear (ἤκουσαν partly founded on the cognate ἀκοή of the last verse, partly recalling the ἤκουσαν of ver. 14) 4 nay rather (ch. ix. 20, note) into all the earth went forth their voice, and to the ends of the world their words. It is remarkable that so few of the Commen- tators have noticed (I have found it only in Bengel, and there but faintly hinted : Olsh., who defends the applicability of the text, does not even allude to it) that Psal. xix. is ὦ comparison of the sun, and glory of the heavens, with the word of ’ God. As far as ver. 6 the glories of nature are described: then the great subject is taken up, and the parallelism carried out to the end. So that the Apostle has not, as alleged in nearly all the Commentators, merely accommodated the text allegorically, but taken it in its context, and followed up the comparison of the Psaim. As to the assertion of the preaching of the. Gospel having gone out into all the world, when as yet a small part of it only had been evangelized,—we must remember that it is not the extent, so much as the universality in character, of this preaching, which the Apostle is here asserting; that word of God, hitherto confined within the limits of Judza, had now broken those bounds, and was preached in all parts of the earth. See Col. i.6, 23. 19. But (in anticipation of another objection, that this universal evangelizing and admission of all, had at any rate taken the Jews by surprise,—that they had not been forewarned of any such purpose of God) I say, Did Israel (no emphasis on Israel—they are not first here introduced, nor have the preceding verses been said only of the Gentiles; but they have been during those verses in the Apostle’s mind, and are now named for distinctness’ sake, because it is not now a question of their having heard, which they did in common with all, but of their having been aware from their Scriptures of God’s intention with regard to themselves and the Gentiles) not know (supply, not ‘the Gos- pel,’ τὴν ἀκοήν, as Chrys., Estius, Rickert, Olsh., al..—but, the fact that such a gene- ral proclamation of the Gospel would be made as has been mentioned in the last verse, raising up the Gentiles into equality and rivalry with themselvyes—so Meyer, Fritz., Thol., De Wette, Stuart, al.— Others supply variously :—Calv. and Beza, ‘the truth of God,’—so as to have an ad- vantage over the Gentiles:—Bengel, ‘jus- titiam Dei:—Bretschneider and Reiche take Ἰσραήλ for the object of ἔγνω, and understand ὁ θεός as its subject: “ Did not God know,—acknowledge, regard with love, —Israel?’ But surely the context will not “λέγω K Ὕ ABCD FL[P]x abcd f ghkl mnol7 [47] 17—21. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 423 a ΄ ’ \ ΄ e a ] Μωυσῆς λέγει ᾿Εγὼ ὁ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς “ ἐπ᾽ ἴ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἃ ch, αἱ. 11,14. 1 Cor. x. 22 ἐπὶ ἔθνει & ἀσυνέτῳ ἢ παροργιῶ ὑμᾶς. ἱ ἀποτολμᾷ καὶ λέγει * ᾿Πὑρέθην [! ἐν] τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ™ ζητοῦ- ἐμὲ 2] Ρπρὸς δὲ τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ λέγει “Ὅλην “ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου πρὸς λαὸν " ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ σιν, ἃ ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς "ἀντιλέγοντα. only. Devt. xxxii. 21. e = Luke i. 29, 7 al 20 Ἣσαϊΐας δὲ 47 al. f = 1 Pet. ii, 10. Lam. i. 6. g ch. i. 21 reff. h Eph. vi. 4 only. 1. c. 3 Kings xv. 30 al. (-σμός, Eph. iv. 26.) , “ ° ἐπερωτωσιν. \ ς ΄ Τὴν ἡμέραν μὴ i here only +. Jos. Antt. xv. 10. 3. k Isa. Ixv. 1. 1 = 1 Tim. i. 16. m = Acts xvii. 27 (reff.) only. : n Acts x. 40 only. Exod. ii. 14. Ὁ = here only. Isa.l.c. Ezek. xx. 3 (?). Y p — Luke xvili. 9. xx. 19. Heb. i. 7, 8. here only. Isa. lxv. 2» τ οἢ. ἰϊ. 8 4]. Deut, xxi, 20. s Luke xx. 27. Acts xiii. 45. L.P., exc. John xix. 12. Hos. iv. 4. ABCD!'3F[PJ8 ἃ m [47] latt coptt goth [eth] arm Chr, Damase [Orig-int,] Hil,. forlst vuas, avtous (from LXX) CR3 [eth]. [ Clem, ]. for 2nd vuas, avrous X38, 20. om αποτολμα και 10] 1.8 and D-lat!(not D2, appy(Tischdf) ]F. for em, ex BC?D[ AR] m rec om εν (corrn to suit Lxx?), with ACD?3L[P]X® rel vulg Clem, Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasc] Hil, : BD! [ Orig-int, ]. 21. for 2nd zpos, ex: D Clem,. D} [and lat]. allow this)?—First (in the order of the prophetic roll; q. d. their very earliest pro- phet: compare Matt. x. 2, πρῶτος Σίμων κιτιλ. Thol., after Riickert, observes, “The Apostle has in his mind a whole series of prophetic sayings which he might adduce, but gives only a few instead of all, and would shew by the πρῶτος, that even in the earliest period the same complaint (of Is- rael’s unbelief) is found”’?) Moses saith, I will provoke you (Heb. and LXX, ‘ them’) to jealousy against (those who are) no nation (the Gentiles, as opposed to the people of God), against a nation that hath no understanding (532, the spiritual fool of Ps. xiv. 1; 1.1; Prov. xvii. 21) will I anger you. The original reference of these words, as addressed to Israel by Moses, is exactly apposite to the Apostle’s argument. Moses prophetically assumes the departure of Israel -from God, and his rejection of them, and denounces from God that as they had moved Him to jealousy with their ‘no-gods’ (idols) and provoked Him to anger by their vanities, —so He would, by receiving into his fa- vour a ‘no-nation,’ make them jealous, and provoke them to anger by adopting instead of them a foolish nation. On the interpre- tation of De Wette, al., that the meaning is, God would deliver the children of Israel, as a prey to the idolatrous nations of Ca- naan, the parallels will not hold; nor do the following verses in Deut. (22—25) jus- tify it. 20,1 But (even more than this: there is stronger testimony yet) Esaias is very bold. and says (i. 6. as we say, ‘dares to say,’ ‘ ventures to speak thus ins BD!F sah[appy] goth[ appy ] Ambrst. aft eyevouny ins ev om kat αντιλεγοντα F Hil,: for αντιλεγ.; Acy. plainly.’ Thol. compares Aischin. de Falsa Leg. ὁ. 45: κἂν ἐθελήσῃ σχετλιάζειν K. λέγειν), I was found (so LXX, the Heb. is ‘Mv17), ‘I was sought :’ but apparently in the sense of Ezek. xiv. 3; xx. 3, ‘en- quired of :’ which amounts to εὑρέθην. In Ezek. xiv. the LXX render it ἀποκρίνεσθαι —and so Stier here, Sd) gebe Untwort . . .) by (or among) those who sought me not, I became manifest to those who asked not after me. The clauses are inverted in order from the LXX. De Wette and other modern Commentators have maintained that Isa. ἰχν. 1 is spoken of ~ the Jews, and not of the Gentiles; their main argument for this view being the connexion of ch. lxiv. and Ixv. But even granting this connexion, it does not follow that God is not speaking in reproach to Israel in ch. lxv. 1, and reminding them prophetically, that while they, His own re- bellious people, provoke Him to anger, the Gentiles which never sought Him have found Him. The whole passage is tho- roughly gone into and its true meaning satisfactorily shewn, in Stier’s valuable work, “Sefaias, nidt Pfeudo-Sefaias,” pp. 797 ff., who remarks that ‘the nation which was not called by my Name, in Ixv. 1, can only primarily mean the Gen- tiles. 21.] But of (not ‘to,’ but ‘ with regard to :’ see reff. The words are not an address) Israel (evidently emphatic ;—the former words having been said of the Gen- tiles) he saith (ibid. ver. 2), All the day (after μου in LXX) I stretched forth my hands (the attitude of gracious invitation) to a people disobedient and gainsaying 434 t ch. x. 18, 19. ver. ll. ᾿ u Acts vii. 27, rt hs 39. xiii. 46. avuTOU ’ PsA. xciii. 14. Ezek. xliii. 9. τ ch. iii. 4 reff. w John i. 48. CHap. XI. 1. for τὸν Aaov, τὴν KAnpovouay F Ambr, Ambrst. ov mpoeyyw AD!N* [Chr,] ΤᾺ] Ambrst-comm Aug, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. XI. 1: Λέγω οὖν, μὴ Acts ii. 22. 2 Cor. xi. 22 ΔΙ Jos, Antt. ii. 9. 1. ΧΙ, υ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν ΑΒοΡ Υ μὴ γένοιτο" καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ “ Iopanditns εἰμί, * σπέρματος ᾿Αβραάμ, φυλῆς Βενιαμείν. x ch. ix. 7 reff. aft αὐτου ins (βενιαμειν, so A BRI: Tischdf ascribes it to his Β’"3[βενιαμ B1(Tischdf N. ὧν Vat) ]) ΟΝ m 17.) (rebellious; the same word 170 occurs Deut. xxi. 18). Cuapv. XI. 1—10. | Yet God has not cast off His people, but there is a remnant according to the election of grace (1—6),—the rest being hardened (7—10). 1.] I say then (a false in- ference from ch. x. 19 —21,—made in order to be refuted), Did (μή, it cannot surely be, that) God cast off His people (as would almost appear from the severe words just adduced)? Be it not so: forIl alsoaman Israelite (ἐκ γένους Ἴσρ., Phil. iii. 5), of the seed of Abraham (mentioned probably for solemnity’s sake, as bringing to mind all the promises made to Abraham), of the tribe of Benjamin (so Phil. iii.5), There is some question with what intent the Apostle here brings forward himself. Three ways are open to us: either (1) it is as ὦ case in point, as an example of an Israelite who has not been rejected but is still one of God’s people: so almost all the Com- mentators—but this is hardly probable,— for in this case (a) he would not surely bring one only example to prove his point, when thousands might have been alleged — (8) it would be hardly consistent with the humble mind of Paul to put himself alone in such a place,—and (vy) μὴ γένοιτο does not go simply to deny a hypothetical fact, but applies to some deprecated consequence of that which is hypothetically put :—or (2) as De Wette, al., he implies, ‘ How can I say such a thing, who am myself an Israelite, &c.?’ ‘Does not my very na- tionality furnish a security against my en- tertaining such an idea ?’—or (3) which I believe to be the right view, but which I have found only in the commentary of Mr. Ewbank,—as implying that if such a hypothesis were to be conceded, it would exclude from God’s kingdom the writer himself, as an Israelite. This seems better to agree with μὴ γένοιτο, as deprecating the consequence of such an assertion. But a question even more important arises, not unconnected with that just discussed : viz. who are ὃ λαὸς αὐτοῦ: ? ΤΩ order for the sentence καὶ yap ἐγὼ x.7.A. to bear the meaning just assigned to it, it is obvious that 6 λαὸς adr. must mean the people of God nationally considered. If Paul depre- cated such a proposition as the rejection of God’s people, because he himself would thus be as an Israelite cut off from God’s favour, the rejection assumed in the hy- pothesis must be a national rejection. It is against this that he puts in his strong protest. It is this which he disproves by a cogent historical parallel from Scripture, shewing that there is a remnant kal ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ according to the election of grace: and not only so, but that that part of Israel (considered as having continuity of national existence) which is for a time hardened, shall ultimately come in, and so all Israel (nationally considered again, Israel as a nation) shall be saved. Thus the covenant of God with Israel, ‘having been national, shall ultimately be fulfilled to them asa nation: not by the gathering in merely of individual Jews, or of all the Jews individually, into the Christian church,—but by the national restoration of the Jews, not in unbelief, but as a Christian believing nation, to all that can, under the gospel, represent their ancient pre-eminence, and to the fulness of those promises which have never yet in their plain sense been accomplished to them. I have entered on this matter here, because a clear understanding of it underlies all in- telligent appreciation of the argument of the chapter. Those who hold xo national restoration of the Jews to pre-eminence, niust necessarily confound the ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ remnant according to the election of grace, with the of λοιποί, who nationally shall be grafted. in again. See this more fully illustrated where that image occurs, ver/17 fi. 2.1 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew (προ- ἔγνω as in reff.: ‘which, in His own eternal decree before the world, He se- lected as the chosen nation, to be His own, the depositary of His law, the vehicle of the theocracy, from its first revelation to Moses, to its completion in Christ's future kingdom.’ It is plain that this must here be the sense, and that the words must not be limited, with Orig., Aug., Chrys., Calv., al., to the elect Christian people of God from among the Jews, with Paul as their representative: seeon ver.1. On this ex- planation, the question of ver. 1 would be self-contradistory, and this negation a ἐκ abcdf ρ 3 u 2 ΄ ghkl 1—6. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 43 « \ \ \ > mw y S x > ἡ ΩΣ Pe ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν ἡ προέγνω. ἢ οὐκ. οἴδατε ἐν γ = ch, vill. 39 reff.). > / fr yr ε ,ὕ ε 5) ΄ a A ἣν rey, Ηλίᾳ τί λέγει ἡ *ypady ; ὡς *° ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ ὃ κατὰ "ἐπί, ἃ sing., ch. ix. al I A 3 K / \ 7 > , . Tov Ἰσραὴλ, ὕριε, TOUS TPOdNTasS σου ἀπέκτειναν, TA” 7s d , 7 e ΄ Sia NUL ὦ εν / , b here only. θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, KAY@ ὑπελείφθην μόνος, 1 Mace. viii. 32. \ a \ / ? δὴ ΄ ΄ >. A ¢ Act ye 24. καὶ 8 ζητοῦσιν τὴν ὃ ψυχὴν μου. 1 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ © ch, viii. 27, « h , i J 3 a e ͵ 34. Heb. vii. ὁ ἔχρηματισμος; ἱΝατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ επτακις γιλίους 25 onlyt. acc. lV. . ” “ oY es ιν | ee Lea ΄ Fie τεῦς ἹΞ ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ * ἔκαμψαν * γόνυ Ἰτῇ Βάαλ. ὅ οὕτως cae 5 A A A a ΠῚ d _y. 2 : OV) καὶ ἐν τη TO νυν m Καιρῷῳ n λείμμα κατ ο ἐκλογὴν d Matt. v. 23 αἱ 3 KINGS xix. Pp ΄ , Gas δὲ , q » ” ᾽ ” oe we χάριτος γέγονεν. ὃ εἰ ὃὲ χάριτι, οὐκ ἔτι ἐξ ἔργων, a Amos ix. il. fhere only. Gen. xxx. 368]. (-λειμμα, ch. ix. 27.) g = Matt. ii. 20 only. Exod. iv. 19. h here only. Prov. xxxi. (see xxiv.) 1. 2 Mace. ii. 4. xi. 17 only. i = Luke xx. 3l. Heb. iv. 1 only. 3 KINGs xix. 18, k ch. xiv.1]. Eph.iii. 14, Phil. ii. 10. 1 Chron. xxix. 20. see Acts vii. 60 reff. 1fem. (not 1, c.), Judg. ii. 13 & iii. 7 (A Ald.compl.). Zeph.i. 4. Hos. ii. 8 al. m ch. iii. 26 reff, nhere only. Josh. xiii. 12 F(not A)compl. 4 Kings xix.4 only. (ὑπόλ., ch. ix. 27.) o ch. ix. 11 reff. p gen. subject., Luke iv. 22. q = ch. vii. 17, 20. 2. rec at end ins λεγων, with LX! rel Syr [wth] Thl Ge: om ABCDF[P]N? [47(sic) ] latt [syr] coptt arm Eus, Chr, Thdrt Damase [Orig-int,] Ambr. 3. rec ins καὶ bef τα θυσιαστηρια, with DLN® rel syrr [eth arm] Just Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasc]: om ABCF[P JX? 17 [47(sic) ] latt coptt Eus, Chr, [Orig-int,]. 4. κατελειπον ACFL[P] n. truism. It would be inconceivable, that God should cast off His elect). Or (see ch. ix. 21 al.:—introduces a new objection to the matter impugned) know ye not what the Scripture saith in (the history of) Elias (better thus than ‘with regard to, as Luth., Erasm., Calv., Beza, al. Tholuck gives examples: from Pausan. vill. 37. 8,--ἔστιν ἐν Ἥρας ὅρκῳ τὰ ἔπη, —i.e. in that part of the Iliad (ξ. 278) where Hera swears by the Titans: from Thucyd. i. 9,---καὶ ἐν τοῦ σκήπτρου ἅμα τῇ παραδόσει εἴρηκεν αὐτὸν πολλῇσι νήσοισι K.”Apyet παντὶ ἀνάσσειν, i.e. in that part of the Iliad (8. 108) where the trans- mission of the sceptre is related)? how (depends on οὐκ οἴδατε) he pleads with (see reff.—and note, ch. viii. 26) God against Israel, &c. The citation is a free one from the LXX. The clauses τοὺς mpop., and τὰ θυσιαστ. are inverted, ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ is omitted, and κἀγὼ ὑπελείφθ. μόνος is put for καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι ἐγὼ μθνώτατοςσ. The altars, as De W. ob- serves, were those on the high places, dedicated to God. 4.] But what saith the divine response to him (χρη- ματισμός, see reff. and reff. to the verb, Acts x. 22)? I have left to myself (here the Apostle corrects a mistake of the LXX, who have for κατέλιπον--- καταλείψεις,--- in the Complut. ed. κατλείψω. He has added to the Heb. *mwwa,—‘ I have left, ‘kept as a remainder,’ —épavt@, a simple and obvious filling up of the sense) seven thousand men, who (the sense of the say- ing, as far as regards the present purpose, for τη, To F: tw G. 5. λιμμα ABICDIFR: Anupa B?. [17 uncert. | κατ᾽ exAoyns D}, viz. to shew that all these were faithful men; in the original text and LXX, it is implied that these were all the faithful men,—émTa χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα γό- vata ἃ οὐκ ὥκλασαν γόνυ(οτη. γόνυ A) τῷ Β. k. πᾶν στόμα ὃ οὐ προξεκύνησεν(προ:- κυνήσει Α) αὐτῷ. But this was not neces- sary to be brought out here) never bowed knee to Baal. “ Here the LXX, accord- ing to the present text, have τῷ, not τῇ Βάαλ : but elsewhere (see reff.) they write the fem.: and probably the Apostle read it so in his copy.” Fritz. According to this Commentator, they wrote the fem., taking Baal for a female deity ; according to Beyer, Addit. ad Seld. de diis Syr., Wetst., Koppe, Olsh., Meyer,—because Baal was an androgynous deity ;—according to Gesenius, in Rosenmiiller, Rep. i. 39, to designate feebleness, compare the Rabbi- nical ninidy, ‘false gods.’ and other ana- logous expressions in Tholuck. “The regarding τῇ Βάαλ as put for τῇ τοῦ Βάαλ, 5011. εἰκόνι or στήλῃ, as Erasm., Beza, Grot., Estius, al., and Bretschneider, is perfectly arbitrary.””’ De Wette. In Tobit i. 5 AB, we have, πᾶσαι ai φυλαὶ ai συν- αποστᾶσαι ἔθυον τῇ Βάαλ τῇ δαμάλει,--- where the golden calves of the ten tribes seem to be identified with Baal, and where a curious addition in δὲ (in this part published by Tischdf. as Codex Friderico- Augustanus) refers expressly to their esta- blishment by Jeroboam. δ.) Thus then (analogical inference from the ex- ample just cited) in the present time also (or, even in the present time, scil. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. ΧΊ; 426 5 Ἢ © , q 3 " ΄ ΒΕ ’ 8 Ν 5" yy reh.iii.9. ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις “ οὐκ ἔτι γινεται χάρις" [εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, vi. 15. , , \ \ y ’ ” > \ » Matt. τί. 32. α οὐκ & vy Ἴρυκ ε lv ἔργον. se οὐκ. “ἐτου χάρες, STE IER CPR uc ἔτι ἐστιν, ey v. | iAimss** 7 τί οὖν; ὃ " ἐπιζητεῖ lopand, ‘ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν, t Acts ix. 20 e \ 9 “ S'a5 e \ \ w2 ͵ ff. v ἃ ἐπέτυχεν: οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν Ms δὲ γ᾿ ἐκλογὴ & ἐπέτυχ ρωθησαν, ἀρ Ἐπ ΑΝ, iv.2only. Gen. xxxix.2. Prov. xii. 27 only. v ch. ix. 11] reff. = here only. w Mark vi. 52. viii. 17. John xii. 40. 2 Cor. iii. 14 only. Job xvii. 7 BN &c. only. (-ρωσις, ver. 23.) 6. for ywera, eor[a]: C2(appy) [F-lat: ἐστι] 54 syrr Chr, Thdrt: est vulg D-lat lat-ff. om last tlause ACDFR! [ P 47-txt] latt coptt (ath) arm Damase [Orig- int,] Ambr Ambrst Aug: [om εἰ δε to xapis 17 :] ins (with some variations) BLN3 rel syrr Chr Thdrt (‘both, in text: they do not expl it in comm; but that does not prove its omn:’ Tischdf [ed. 7]) Gennad-c, ΤῺ] Gc. (See notes.)—(rec ins ἐστι bef 3rd xapis: omd by B.—for epyov at end, xapis (by mistake 9) B.) 7. ἐπεζητει F 73 latt syrr { Orig-int, | lat-ff. rec Tovtov (grammatical corrn), with ἃ gh 15 Chr,-montf Thdor-mops[-c, Cyr-c, Damasc] Thdrt : txt ABCDFL[P |X rel Chr, Chr,-2-mss. erepwOnoar(sic) C (ἴῃ ? [sic, Tischdf]): ἐπορευθησαν c: exnpw- θησαν 667: excecati sunt latt [arm Orig-int, }. of Israel’s national rejection) there is a remnant (a part has remained faithful, which thus has become a λεῖμμα) according to (in virtue of,—in pursuance of) the elec- tion (selection, choice of a few out of many) of grace (made not for their desert, nor their foreseen congruity, but of God’s free unmerited favour). 6.] ‘ And let us remember, when we say an election of grace, how much those words imply : viz. nothing short of the entire exclusion of all human work from the question. Let these two terms be regarded as, and kept, distinct from one another, and do not let us attempt to mix them and so destroy the meaning of each.’ So that the meaning of the verse is to clear up and remove all doubt concerning the meaning of ‘ election of grace, —and to profess on the part of the Apostle perfect readiness to accept his own words in their full sense, and to abide by them. This casts some light on the question of the genuineness of the brack- eted clause (see authorities in var. readd.). The object being precision, it is much more probable that the Apostle should have written both clauses in their present for- mal parallelism, and that the second should have been early omitted from its seeming superfluity, than that it should have been inserted from the margin. Besides which, as Fritz. has remarked, the words do not correspond sufficiently with those of the first clause to warrant the supposition of their having been constructed to tally with it: we have for χάριτι in the first, ἐξ ἔργων in the second,—for γίνεται χάρις, ἐστὶν €pyov ;—and the plur. ἔργα would probably have been retained in the infer- ence of clause 2, But (directing attention to the consequence of the admission, ἐκλ. χάριτος) if by grace (the selection has been made), it is no longer (when we have conceded that, we have excluded its being) of (arising out of, as its source) works: for (in that case) grace no longer becomes (i.e. becomes no longer—loses its efficacy and character as) grace (the freedom and ‘proprio motu’ character, absolutely neces- sary to the idea of grace, are lost, the act having been prompted from without) :— but if of (arising out of, as the cause and source of the selection) works, no longer is it (the act of selection) grace; for (in that case) work no longer is work (the essence of work, in our present argument, being ‘ that which earns reward,’ and the reward being, as supposed, the election to be of the remnant,—if so earned, there can be no admixture of divine favour in the matter; it must be all earned, or none: none conferred by free grace, or all). These cautions of the Apostle are decisive against all attempts at compromise between the two great antagonist hypotheses, of salvation by God’s free grace, and salva- tion by man’s meritorious works. The two cannot be combined without destroying the plain meaning of words. If now the Apostle’s object in this verse be to guard carefully the doctrine of election by free grace from any attempt at an admixture of man’s work, why is he anxious to do this just at this point? I conceive, be- cause he is immediately about to enter on a course of exposition of the divine deal- ings, in which, more than ever before, he rests all upon God’s sovereign purpose, while at the same time he shews that purpose, though apparently severe, to be one, on the whole, of grace and love. 7.) What then (what therefore must be our conclusion from what has been stated ? We have seen that God hath not cast off his own chosen nation, but that even now there is a remnant. This being so, what aspect do matters present? This he asks to bring out an answer which may 7—10. 8 θὰ / "BS » A c καθὼς γέγραπται WKEV αὐτοῖς ὁ ΄ \ “ \ f > Υ κατανύξεως, 5 ὀφθαλμοὺς ὃ τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν, Kal ἡ ὦτα ToD μὴ ἀκούειν, ἕως τῆς “σήμερον “ ἡμέρας. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 427 θεὸς Χ πνεῦμα x = ch. viii. 1 bis. 1 Cor. . iv. 21. 2 Cor. iv. 13. Gal. 9 \ Eph. Ka 7 , “- 5 Δαυεὶδ λέγει ἃ Γενηθήτω ἡ “ τράπεζα αὐτῶν 3 εἰς 8 traryida Υ hers omy be. 2 \ > καὶ ἃ εἰς δἰ θήραν καὶ ἃ εἰς ᾿Ἑ σκάνδαλον καὶ 4 εἰς (5) only. (-νύσσειν, Acts li. 37. le αντε , an ΄ € 5 \ A - απόδομα αὐτοῖς, 10 πιὰ σκοτισθήτωσαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν | Six. xx 31) DEvT. xxix. a lal \ βλέ \ Ν a > “ ἢ ὃ \ \ 4. τοῦ μὴ ἔπειν, καὶ τὸν νῶτον αὐτων χα WAVTOS Scone tear b Paul, Acts xxviii. 27 bis (from Isa. vi. 10). xx. 26. 2 Cor. iii. 14 only. Josh. v. 9. e = 1Cor. x. 21 bis. Ps. Ixxvii. 20. Vii. 23. g Ps. xxxiv. 8. n Acts ii. 25. x. 2al. Isa. xlix. 16, 8. καθαπερ BN. 1 Cor. ii. 9. xii. 16 only. f Luke xxi. 35. D h Josh. xxiii. 13. Ps. cxl. 9, v. 2. k = Matt. xvi. 23. ch. ix. 33 al. xxvii. 4. 2 Chron. xxxii.25. (-δοσις, Col. iii. 24.) x. 13 reff. c Matt. xxviii. 15. Acts ἃ constr., Acts v. 36 reff. Psa. lxviii. 22. 1 Tim. iii. 7. vi. 9. 2 Tim. ii. 26 only. Prov. i here only. = Hos, 1 Luke xiv. 12 only. Ps. m = ch. i, 21 (reff.) only. 1. c. 1 Kings xviii. 21. 6 is written twice in δὲ. [8, 9. nucpas και Saud is supplied at the foot of the page in F-gr(not G).] 9. ins καθαπερ bef και Saved C. set in view the ot Aourot)? ΄“ That which Israel is in search of (viz. δικαιοσύνη, see ch. ix. 31; x. 1 ff.), this it (as a nation) found not (on ἐπιτυγχάνω w. an ace., see Matthie, Gr. Gr. § 363 obs.), but the election (the abstract, because Israel has been spoken of in the abstract, and to keep out of view for the present the mere indi- vidual cases of converted Jews in the idea of an elected remnant) found it: 8.] but the rest were hardened (not ‘blinded ;? see note on Eph. iv. 18:— σκληροτέῤαν ἡ ἀπιστία τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπειργάσατο. Theodoret. It is passive, and implies God as the agent. This for the sake of the context, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὃ θεὸς x.7.A., not necessarily for the meaning of the word itself, which might indicate ‘became hard,’ but certainly does not here),—as it is written (if we are to regard these passages as merely analogous instances of the divine dealings, we must remember that the perspective of pro- phecy, in stating such cases, embraces all analogous ones, the divine dealings being self-consistent,—and especially that great one, in which the words are most pro- minently fulfilled), God gave to them (LXX and Heb., πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς) a spirit (see reff.) of stupor (there is at the end of Fritzsche’s commentary on this chapter an elaborate excursus on κατάνυξις, in which he has thoroughly investigated its derivation and meaning. He comes to the conclusion that it is derived from κατανύσσω, ‘compungo,’ and might sig- nify any excitement of mind, pity, sadness, &c.,—but in the few places where it occurs, it does import stupor or numbness :—so ref. Ps. ἐπότισας ἡμᾶς οἶνον κατανύξεως“, --- which Hammond explains to mean the stupifying wine given to them that were to be put to death. Hanim. alsocites from Marcus Eremita, vov@eo. ψυχ. p. 948, a passage where he describes πόνον tijs κατανύξεως as the consequence of oivo- ποσίαι. Tholuck compares the similar meanings of ‘frappé,’ struck, betrofjen),— eyes that they should not see (such eyes that they might not see: in the Heb. and LXX the negative is joined with the verb, καὶ ovk ἔδωκεν κύριος 6 θ. ὑμῶν x.T.A.) and ears that they should not hear unto this present day. ‘These last words are not, as Beza, E. V., Griesb., Knapp, to be sepa- rated from the citation, and joined to ἐπωρώθησαν : they belong to the words in Deut. and are adduced by St. Paul as applying to the day then present, as they did to the day when Moses spoke them: see 2 Cor. iii. 15. 9.1] And David saith, Let their table be for a snare and for a net (θήρα more usually ‘a hunt,’ or the act of taking or catching, —but here and in ref. a net, the instru- ment of capture. It is not in the Heb. nor in the LXX, and is perhaps inserted by the Apostle to give emphasis by the accumulation of synonyimes), and for a stumbling-block and for a recompense to them (the LXX have eis παγίδα K. εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν κ. εἰς σκάνδαλον. The Heb. of εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν, as at present pointed, is Ὁ, ‘to the secure.’ It has been supposed that the LXX pointed nw? or oie, ‘for retributions.” See Ps. xci. 8: but qu. ?): 10.} let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and their back bow thou down always. «Instead of bending the back, the Heb. text speaks of making the loins to tremble, 1y27 o2N9. This elsewhere is a sign of great terror, Nah. ii. 10; Dan. v. 6: and the darkening of the eyes betokens in the Psalm, a weakened, humbled, servile condition, just as in 428 ° σύγκαμψον. e here only. l.c. 4 Kings iv. 35 only. pver.lal. _ (=-) James il. 10. iii. 2 (bis). 2 Pet. i. 10 only. 1 Kings iv. 2. r = ch. xiv. 4 reff. s ch. iii. 4 reff. t ch. iv. 25 reff. uch, iv. 11] reff. vi. 7 only. Isa.xxxi.8only. (see 2 Cor. xii. 13 reff.) 28, ver. 24. Philem. 16. Heb. ix. 14 only. 12. om ver A. Deut. xxviii. 65—67. It is plain from διὰ παντός, that we must not suppose the infirmities of age to be meant. The Apostle might well apply such a description to the servile condition of the bondmen of the law, see Gal. iv. 24.’* Tholuck. 11—24.] Yet this exclusion and hardening has not been for their destruction, but for mercy to the Gentiles, and eventually for their own restoration. 11.] I say then (see on ver. 1), Did they (who? see below) stumble in order that they should fall (not ‘sic, ut caderent’—as Vulg.,—so Orig., Chrys., Grot., al., denoting the result merely : neither the grammar nor the con- text will bear this: the Apostle is arguing respecting God’s intent in the παράπτωμα of the Jewish nation. He here calls it by this mild name to set forth that it is not final. The subject of ἔπταισαν is the αὐτοί of the following verses, i.e. the Jews, as a people: not the unbelieving indivi- duals, who are characterized as πεσόντες, ver. 22. He regards the λοιποί as the re- presentatives of the Jewish people, who have nationally stumbled, but not in order to their final fall, seeing that God has a gracious purpose towards the Gentiles even in this πταῖσμα of theirs, and intends to raise them nationally from it in the end. This distinction, between the πταίσαντες, the whole nation as a nation, and the πεσόντες, the unbelieving branches who have been cut off, is most important to the right understanding of the chapter, and to the keeping in mind the separate ideas, of the restoration of individuals here and there throughout time, and the restoration of Israel at the end. The stress is on πέσωσιν. and it is the fall which is denied : not on ἵνα πέσωσιν, so that the purpose merely should be denied, and the fall ad- mitted)? God forbid: but (the truer ac- count of the matter is) by their trespass (μοῦ fall, as Εἰ. V.) salvation (has come) to the Gentiles, for to provoke them (Israel) to jealousy. Two gracious pur- poses of God are here stated, the latter wrought out through the former. By this stumble of the Jews out of their national place in God’s favour, and the admission ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. v ch. x. 19 reff. z as above (y). ΧΙ, 1] Ρ λέγω οὖν, μὴ “ἔπταισαν ἵνα * πέσω- σιν; “μὴ γένοιτο ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῶν ‘ παραπτώματι ἡ σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “eis τὸ Y παραζηλῶσαι αὐτούς. 15 εἰ δὲ τὸ ᾿ παράπτωμα αὐτῶν “ πλοῦτος κόσμου καὶ τὸ “ἥττημα αὐτῶν “ πλοῦτος ἐθνῶν, 5 πόσῳ Y μᾶλλον w = Heb. xi. 26. x 1 Cor. y Matt. vii. 11. x. 25. Luke xi. 13, xii. 24, Matt. xii. 12. Heb. x. 29 only. of the Gentiles into it, the very people thus excluded are to be stirred up to set them- selves in the end effectually to regain, as a nation, that pre-eminence from which they are now degraded. 12.] Then the Apostle argues on this, as Meyer well says, ‘a felici effectu cause pejoris ad feliciorem effectum cause melioris:’—But (‘posito, that ’—as in last verse—taking for granted the historical fact, that the stumble of the Jews has been coincident with the admis- sion of the Gentiles) if their trespass is the world’s wealth (the occasion of that wealth, —the wealth itself being the participation in the unsearchable riches of Christ), and (this latter clause parallel to and explana- tory of the less plainly expressed one before it) their loss, the wealth of the Gentiles, how much more (shall) their replenish- ment (be all this)? On ἥττημα and πλήρωμα much question has been raised. I have taken both as answering strictly to the comparison here before the Apostle’s mind, viz. that of impoverishing and en- riching,—and the genitives αὐτῶν [&c.] as subjective: q. ἃ. ‘if their impoverishment be the wealth of the Gentiles, how much more shall their enrichment be!’ But several other interpretations are possible. (1) #77 nua may mean as in ref. 1 Cor., degradation, and πλήρωμα would then be Sulness, re-exaltation to the former mea- sure of favour,—or perhaps, as where Herod. iii. 22 says ὀγδώκοντα ἔτεα Cons πλήρωμα, ‘their completion, ‘their highest degree of favour.’ (2) If we regard the meaning of πλήρωμα in ver. 25, we shall be tempted here to render it, ‘full num- ber,’ and similarly ἥττημα, ‘small num- ber.’ So the majority of Commentators : Chrys., Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, Bucer, Grot., Bengel, Reiche, De W. (but only as regards πλήρ. :—he renders #77. with Lu- ther, Gdjabde) and Olsh. (see below). Thus the argument will stand : ‘If their unbelief (i.e. of one part of them) is the world’s wealth, and their small number (i.e. of believers, the other part of them), the wealth of the Gentiles, how much more their full (restored) number !’ i.e. as Olsh. explains it, ‘ If so few Jews can do so much ABCD ΕΓΓΡῚΝ abcd@ ghk!1 mnoi7z [47] 1]—15. ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΊΟΥΣ. 429 lal A »-“ 7 τὸ "πλήρωμα αὐτῶν; 15 ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἐθνεσιν. a = here only. b 3. 4.5 b 7 \ 5 > a \ 20) A > ΄ \ ep "ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμι ἐγὼ εθνῶὼν atroaToXos, THY see Eph. i. 23 notes. John i. 16. ΄, , ver. 25. ὁ διακονίαν μου ἃ δοξάζω, 13 ὁ εἴ πως Y παραζηλώσω pov > Ἐ Mate, πα, \ f ΄ \ g / \ 2 es τὴν σάρκα καὶ ὃ σώσω τινὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν. reff. d = 2 Cor. iii. 10. 24 : g ΞΞῚ Cor. vii. 16 (bis), ix. 22, 1 Tim. iy. 10, Judg. ix. 9. James v. 20. te ind τ : ) xxv. 40, 9) 45 (2 Pet. i. εὐ yap q) 13) only. c = Acts xx. ech. i. 10. f Gen. xxxvii. 27. 18. rec (for δὲ) yap, with DFL rel latt goth Chr, Thdrt{-ed] ΤῊ] ec [Orig-int, Ambrst]: ovy C: om eth: txt ABX[P 47 arm] syrr copt Thdrt-ms Damasc. rec om ovy (see notes), with L rel vulg D3-lat syr (copt(Treg) th] Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] Cc [Orig-int, Ambrst] Aug: om μὲν ovy DF goth [arm]: ins ABC[P]® copt{(Tischdf) Cyr, Damasc]. goth] Cyr, [Orig-int, Ambrst]. | Orig-int,.] lat-ff(but not Aug,). 14. την capa bef μου DF. for the Gentile world, what will not the whole number do?” But thus we shall lose the ‘a minori ad majus’ argument— ‘if their siz has done so much, how much more their conversion?’ unless indeed it be said that τὸ ἥττημα implies a national παράπτωμα. Besides, it can hardly be shewn that ἥττημα will bear this meaning of ‘a small number.’ (9) Tholuck, from whom mostly this note is taken, notices at length the view of Olsh., after Origen, that the idea of a definite number of the elect is here in the Apostle’s mind,— that the falling off of the Jews produces a deficiency in the number, which is filled up by the elect from the Gentiles, as ver. 25: understanding by πλήρωμα both there and here, if I take his meaning aright, the number required to fill up the roll of the elect, whether of Jews, as here, or Gentiles, as there. Tholuck, while he concedes the legitimacy of the idea of a πλήρωμα τῶν σωζομένων, maintains, and rightly, that in this section no such idea is brought forward: and that it would not have been intended, without some more definite expression of it than we now find. I have thought it best as above, consi- dering the very various meanings and diffi- culty of the word πλήρωμα, to keep here to that which seems to be indicated by the immediate context, which is, besides, the primitive meaning of the word. It must be noticed, that the fact, of Israel being the chosen people of God, lies at the root of all this argument. Israel is the nation, the covenant people,—the vehicle of God’s gracious purposes to mankind. Israel, nationally, is deposed from present favour. That very deposition is, however, accom- panied by an outpouring of God’s riches of mercy on the Gentiles; not as rivals to Israel, but still considered as further from God, formally and nationally, than Israel. if then the disgrace of Israel has had such a blessed accompaniment, how much more om eyw A n 73. 80. 108-16-8 arm Thdrt-ms, : ins bef equ F [vulg δοξασω F [17] 46. 109 latt Thdrt{-ed],(txt,) blessed a one shall Israel’s honour bring with it, when His own people shall once more be set as a praise in the midst of the earth, and the glory of the nations. 13. | ‘ Why, in an argument concerning the Jews, dwell so much on the reference to the Gentiles discernible in the divine economy regarding Israel? Why make it appear as if the treatment of God’s chosen people were regulated not by a consideration of them, but of the less favoured Gentiles ?’ The present verse gives an answer to this question. But (apology for the foregoing verse :—if γάρ bé read, the sense will be much the same—For (i. e. let it be under- stood, that), &c.) I am speaking to you the Gentiles. Inasmuch therefore (μὲν οὖν is surely not to be rejected as yielding no sense,—as De Wette and Tholuck, who object to it as proceeding from those who hold a new sentence to begin at ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, and ὑμῖν... .. ἔθνεσιν to refer to the fore-' going :—but the usage of μὲν οὖν in 1 Cor. vi. 4 seems strictly analogous to that in our text, where no new sentence is begun in any sense which may not be true here. ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, not ‘as long as,’ as Orig. and Vulg.) as I am Apostle of the Gentiles, I honour mine office (by striving for their conversion and edification at all times,—by introducing a reference to them and their part in the divine counsels, even when speaking of mine own people), if by any means I may (regarding it as a real ser- vice done on behalf of Israel, thus to honour mine office by mentioning the Gentiles, if this mention may) provoke to jealousy mine own flesh (the Jews) and may save some of them. 15. | For (a reason for my anxiety for the salva- tion of Israel: not merely for the sake of mine own kinsmen, but because their recovery will bring about the blessed con- summation of all believers. Vv. 13, 14 should not then be in a parenthesis) if the rejection of them (not ‘their Joss,’ as Luth: 450. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19 only $. (Isa. ix. 5.) 2 Macc. v. 20 only. m ch. ix, 21 reff. ᾿ only in Epp. Ezek. xxxi. 7. 15. κοσμω F. 16. for δε, yap A: om C? goth [eth]. Chr-ms,. and Beng., by which the antithesis to πρός- Anus is weakened) be (the occasion of) the reconciliation of the world (of the Gentiles, viz. to God), what (‘ qualis,’ ‘ of what kind,’ in its etfect) (will be) their reception, but (the occasion of) life from the dead? ζωὴ ἐκ vexp. may be variously taken. (1) it may be metaphorical, as in ch. vi. 13, and may import, that so general a conversion of the world would take place, as would be like life from the dead. So, more or less, Caly., Calov., Estius, Bengel, Stuart, Hodge, al., and Theophyl., Phot., who explain it of a joy like that of the resurrection. But against this interpreta- tion lies the objection, that this is already involved in καταλλαγὴ κόσμ., and thus no new idea would be brought out by the words, which stand in the most emphatic position. (2) it may mean that ‘life from the dead’ literally should follow on the restoration of the Jewish people; i. e. that the Resurrection, the great consummation, is bound up with it. So Chrys., Orig. (tune enim erit assumptio Israel, quando jam et mortui vitam recipient, et mundus ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiet, et mor- tales immortalitate donabuntur”), Theo- doret, Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche, Riickert ed. 2, Tholuck, al. The objection to this view seems to be, that the Apostle would hardly have used ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν thus pre- dicatively, if he had meant by it a fixed and predetermined event ;—but that, stand- ing as it does, it must be qualitative, im- plying some further blessed state of tlie reconciled world, over and above the mere reconciliation. This might well be de- signated ‘life from the dead,’ and in it may be implied the glories of the first resurrection, and deliverance from the bondage of corruption, without supposing the words ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν Ξ- ἣ ἀνάστασις τῶν vex. Stuart well compares Ezek. xxxvii. 1—14, which was perhaps before the mind of the Apostle:—but he gives a mere ethical interpretation to it. 16—24.] Such a restoration of Israel was to be expected from a consideration of their destination and history. This is set forth in similitudes, that of the root and branches being followed out at some length,—and ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. ΧΙ. λημψιῖις, εἰ μὴ ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν ; 16 εἰ δὲ ἡ "ὶ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία, καὶ τὸ ™ φύραμα" καὶ εἰ ἡ " ῥίζα ἁγία, καὶ οἱ 5 κλάδοι. jhere only+. (-λαμβάνειν, ch. xiv. 3.) ἢ Matt, iii, 10. xiii. 6 al. Job xiv. 8. k ch. viii. 23 reff. 1 Num. xv. 21. o Matt. xiii. 32 al. here Kc. (5 times) for mposA., προλ. CF ΚΙ, om 2nd εἰ F{P'] 70-1. 109 lect-13 arm their own position, as engrafted Gentiles, brought to the mind of the readers. But (a further argument for their restoration following on ἀλλά, ver. 11) if the first- fruit be holy, so also the lump (not here the firstfruit of the field, as Grot., Rosenm. (nor is φύραμα the cake made by the priests out of the firstfruits which fell to them, Deut. xviii. 4, as Estius, Koppe, KOéllner, Olsh., al.) ;—but the portion of the kneaded lump of dough (φύρω), which was offered as a heave-offering to the Lord, and so sanctified for use the rest: see ref. Num. where the same words occur) ;—and if the root be holy, so also the branches. Who are the ἀπαρχή and the pita? First of all, there is no impropriety in the two words applying to the same thing. For though, as Olsh. remarks, the branches being evolved from the root, it rather answers to the φύραμα than to the ἀπαρχή, and, as Riickert, the firstfruit succeeds the lump in time, while the root precedes the branches,—yet, as Thol. replies, the ἁγιότης is the point of comparison, and in ἁγιότης the ἀπαρχή precedes and gives existence to the φύραμα. This being so, (1) the ἀπαρχή and ῥίζα have generally been taken to represent the patriarchs ; and I believe rightly (except that perhaps it would be more strictly correct to say, Abraham himself). The ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας of ver. 28 places this refer- ence almost beyond doubt. Origen ex- plains the ῥίζα to be owr Lord. But He is Himself.a branch, by descent from Abraham and David (Isa. xi. 1; Matt. i. 1), if genealogically considered ; and if mysti- cally, the whole tree (John xv. 1). De Wette prefers to take as the firstfruit and root, the ideal theocracy founded on the patriarchs,—the true, faithful children of the patriarchs, and as the branches, those united by mere external relationship to these others. This he does, because in the common acceptation, the κλάδοι who are cut offought to be severed from their phy- sical connexion with Abraham, &c., which they are not. This objection I do not con- ceive applicable here: because, as we see evidently from ver. 23, the severing and re-engrafting are types, not of genealogical 2 .«-ἰ,..5 κι γι 10---18, ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. 431 17 εἰ δέ τινες τῶν ° κλάδων P ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ 4 ἀγρι-- phere ἃς. Ice dr, Xx t b] / 0 5 > a“ ‘ 8 \ EAAaLOS ὧν EVEKEVTPLOUHS EV AUTOS Kab TVUYKOLYWVOS ~ n Ἐπ col t , “ THs "ῥίζης tHS "πιότητος τῆς xvii. 6. 7. Rev.i.9only+. (-etv, Eph. v. 11.) ’ , SUF \ α ἐλαίας ἐγένου, 18 μὴ r here ἅς. (6 times) only+. Wisd. xvi. 11 only. only. Levit. i. 17 only. q ver. 24 only ¢ see Isa. xhiv. 14 F(not A) compl. Jer. 81 Cor. ix. 23. Phil. i. u ver. 24. James there only. June. ix. 9. iii, 12, Rev. xi. 4 only, exc. (w. ὄρος) in Gospp. Gen. viii. 11. 17. for evex., εκεντρισθης L. om ev C!(appy). rec ins καὶ bef trys πιοτῆτο, with AL[D?3P]X3 rel [vulg syrr goth «eth arm Chr, Thdrt Antch, Orig-int,]: om BC(D!F)N! copt Damasc{[-txt]. k (Cyr-jer,) Iren-int,. disunion and reunion, but of spiritual. Meanwhile, De W.’s view appears less simple than the ordinary one, which, as I hope to shew, is borne out by the whole passage. (2) Then, who are indicated by the φύραμα and the κλάδοι ISRAEL, con- sidered as the people of God. The lump, which has received its ἁγιότης from the ἀπαρχή, = Israel, beloved for the fathers’ sakes: the assemblage of branches, evolved from Abraham, and partaking of his holi- ness. But one thing must be especially borne in mind. As Abraham himself had an outer and an inner life, so have the branches. They have an outer life, de- rived from Abraham by physical descent. Of this, no eutting off can deprive them. It may be compared to the very organization of the wood itself, which subsists even after its separation from the tree. But they have, while they remain in the tree,an nner life, nourished by the circulating sap, by virtue of which they are constituted living parts of the tree: see our Lord’s parable of the vine and the branches, John xv. 1 ff. It is of this life, that their severance from the tree deprives them: it is this life, which they will re-acquire if grafted in again. See a very ingenious but artificial explana- tion in Olsh., who agrees in the main with De W.:—and the whole question admirably discussed in Tholuck. The ἁγιότης then here spoken of, consists in their dedication to God as a people—in their being physi- cally evolved from a holy root. This pecu- liar ἁγιότης (see 1 Cor. vii. 14, where the children of one Christian parent «are simi- larly called ἅγια) renders their restoration to their own stock a matter, not of wonder and difficulty, but of reasonable hope and probability. I may notice in passing, that those expositors who do not hold a restora- tion of the Jewish people to national pre- eminence, find this passage exceedingly in their way, if we may judge by their expla- nations of this ἁγιότης. K.g. Mr. Ewbank remarks: ‘ Holy they are, inasmuch as there is no decree against their restoration to their place of life and fruitfulness.’ Surely this is a new meaning of “ holy:’ the same would be true of a Hottentot : in his case, eyevou THs πι. THs ελαιας [omg της ριζη5) DF too, there is no decree against his reception into a place (and im Mr. E.’s view, the restoration of the Jew is nothing more) of life and fruitfulness in the Chureh of God. 17.] But (introduces a hypothesis in- volving a seeming ineonsistency with the ἁγιότης just mentioned) if some of the branches (the tives, as ἜΠΟΣ. remarks, de- preciates the number, m order to check the Gentile pride) were broken out (from the tree), and thou (a Gentile believer) being a wild olive (aypiéAatos, the tree, spoken of a sprout or branch of it. Better so than, as Fritz., Meyer, to make ayp. an adj., ‘of wild olive,’ which can only be used of that which ts made out of the wood, as aypt- έλαιος σκυτάλη. Thol.) wast grafted in (Clem. Alex. Strom. vi.[15]§ 119, p.799 P., enumerates four different kinds of éyxev- τρισμός, using it as a general term for grafting and budding. The difficulty here is, that the Apostle reverses the natural process. It is the wilding, in practice, which is the stock, and the graft inserted is a sprout of the better tree. I believe that he does not here regard what is the fact in nature: but makes a supposition perfectly legitimate,—that a wilding graft on being inserted into a good tree, thereby becomes partaker of its qualities. No allusion can be intended to a practice men- tioned by Columella, de Re Rust. v. 9, of inserting a wilding graft into a good tree to increase the vigour and growth of the tree: for this would completely stultify the illustration—the point of which is, a benefit received by the wilding from the tree, not one conferred by the wild- ing on it) among them (i.e. among the branches,—vo7s κλάδοις : or perhaps αὐτοῖς may imply the remnants of the branches broken off. The renderings, ‘in their stead, ‘in loewm, as De W. after Chrys., Theophyl., Beza,—and ‘in their place, ‘in loco,’ Meyer, Olsh., are surely inad- missible), and becamest a feliow-partaker (with the branches: or perhaps simply ‘a partaker,’ σύν not implying fellows in par- ticipation, but merely the participation itself) of the root of the fatness (of that root, on union with which all the develop- 4533 v (—) here bis. iii. 14 only. Jer. xxvil. (1.) 11, 38 (Zech. x. 12) only. w ch. xv. Ll. Matt. xx. 12. John xvi.12. & 4 Kings xviii. ΕΟ ΤΉΚας. 14. Sir. vi. 25 only. Bel ἃ Dr. 36 Theod. x Matt. xv. 7. John iv. 17 al. 2 Kings iii. 13. y = ch. iii. 3. vi. 17 only +. see ch. xii. 16 reff. below (1). d = 1 Cor. viii. 9. ellips., here only. 18. for κατακαυχασαι, ov καυχασαι D'F Ambrst. 19. for εξεκλασθησαν, εἰ κλασθησανΐ si fracti sunt] F [ D-lat! Orig-int, 1. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOT®S, Heb. iii. 19. dat. of cause, see ver. 30, a= chix. 2k c Paul (Acts xx. 29. ch. viii. 32. XI. Vv nw - ΠῚ x [ὃ = 9 δὲ Vv aw > κατακαυχῶ τῶν “ κλάδων εἰ δὲ “KaTaKavyaoat, οὐ σὺ τὴν " ῥίζαν * βαστάζεις, ἀλλὰ ἡ ῥίζα σέ. οὖν Ρ᾽ Βξεκλάσθησαν ° 19. ἀρεῖς κλάδοι ἵνα ἐγὼ * ἐγκεντρισθῶ. "0 χ καλῶς. τῇ " ἀπιστίᾳ " ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ τῇ πίστει μὴ ἡ τὑψηλοφρόνει, ἀλλὰ φοβοῦ: 31 εἰ γὰρ ὁ Ν “-“ / ΄ ’ ΄ θεὸς τῶν ® κατὰ ὃ φύσιν ° κλάδων οὐκ ° ἐφείσατο, [4 μή vi z1 Tim, . Col. iii, 22. b here &c. (3ce) only t. see 1 Cor. vii. 28 al.) only, exc. 2 Pet. it. 4,5. Ezek. xxxvi. 21. (aAAa, so ΒΝ.) rec ins ot bef κλαδοι, with D! Ὁ c[e sil] o Thdrt [Antch,] Thl: om A B(Tischdf, expr) CD3FL[P |X rel Chr, [Antch, ] Damasc. 20. for εξεκλασθησαν, ἐκλασθησαν B(Tischdf, expr) D'F: txt ACD3L[P]X& rel Chr, Thdrt [Antch, Damasc ]. [for ov, συν D'(appy ; but ν erased, as is also one letter before and one after moti: απιστια, Wetst). ] 21. εἰ yap is written over an erasure by δὲ!. Ἐὐψηλὰ φρόνει ABN. rec ins wn πως, with DFL rel (vulg syrr goth arm] Chr,(kal οὐκ εἶπεν Οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται, ἀλλὰ Μή πως οὐδὲ σοῦ ment of life and its fertility depend: which is the source of the fatness. With καί, it will mean, of the source of life, and also of the development of that life itself in all richness of blessing) of the olive-tree, 18.} do not boast against the branches (which were broken off): but if thou boastest against them (know that... or let this consideration humble thee, that ... Similarly 1 Cor. xi. 16, εἰ δέ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι, ἡμεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, κιτιλ. See Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 1a) it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee. The ground of humiliation is—“ Thou partakest of thy blessings solely by union with God’s spi- ritual church, which church has for its root that Father of the faithful, from whom they are descended. Regard them not therefore with scorn.” This is expanded further in ver. 20. 19.1 Thou wilt then (posito, that thou boastest, and de- fendest it) say, Branches (it would look as if the art. had been erased, to square this sentence with ver. 17, where τινὲς τ. κλάδων only were broken off. Or we might think, as Matthaéi has remarked (Thol.), that, ‘Gentilis loquitur arrogan- tius,’ using of «A. in his pride, to signify that the branches, generically, have now become subject to excision on his account. But the fact, now ascertained by Tischdf., that B omits the art., makes nearly the whole manuscript authority against it) were broken off that I (emphatic) might be grafted in. 20. Well (the fact, involving even the purpose, assumed in wva,is conceded. When Thol. denies this, he forgets that the prompting cause of their excision, their unbelief, is distinct from the divine purpose of their exci- sion, the admission of the Gentiles, and belongs to a different side of the sub- ject ):—through their unbelief (or per- haps, ‘through unbelief, abstract. There is often a difficulty in distinguishing the pos- sessive from the abstract (i. 6. generic) article. Thol. observes that the in- strumental use of the dat. and that of διά with the gen. differ in this, that the latter expresses more the zmmediate cause, the former the mediate and more remote. The explanation of this would be, that the dative only acquires its instrumental use through another, more proper attri- bute of the case, that of reference to, form or manner in which: see Bern- hardy, Syntax, ch. iii. 14, pp. 100—105) they were broken off, but thou by thy faith (see above :—‘ through’ indicates bet- ter the prompting cause of a definite act,— ‘by, the sustaining condition of a con- tinued state. ‘Thus we should always say that we are justified through, not by, faith, —but that we stand dy, not through, faith) standest (in thy place, in the tree, opposed to ἐξεκλάσθησαν. ‘Thol. prefers the sense in ch. xiv. 4, and certainly the adoption of πεσόντες ver. 22, seems to shea that the figurative diction is not strictly preserved). —Be not high-minded, but fear: 21.| for if God did not spare the natural branches (the branches which grewaccord- ing to natural development, and were not engrafted),—(supply ‘I fear,’ or ‘it is to be feared,’ or simply ‘fear,’ or ‘ take heed,’ as in ref.) lest He shall also not spare THEE. The fut. ind. with μή πως, the apparent incongruity of which has pro- bably caused the variety of reading, im- plies, as Herm., Soph, Aj. 272, observes with regard to the ind. pres., “μὴ ἐστὲ L.-. xen- στοτητα 19---94. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 433 d δὲ y Ξε 22 7 ᾿ e ᾿ ᾿ 6 ch. ii. 4 reff. πως] οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται. ἶδε OD XPNOTOTHTG Heat $e etree Γἀποτομίαν θεοῦ" ἐπὶ μὲν τοὺς 8 πεσόντας ἴ ἀποτομία, oat a Dies \ \ / “ >A h®*? / lal e ἢ = ἐπὶ δὲ σὲ “ στότης θεοῦ, ἐὰν "' ἐπιμείνης τ - πραότητι ΤΌΝ ΤΠ κω tie pu 128 seein, ἀν ΝΣ στότητι" ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἵἱ ἐκκοπήσῃ. 25 κἀκεῖνοι δέ, ἐὰν Flnt-de lib. Se hie? t tal y b) / k2 67 le ὃ D. (-μος, μὴ ὃ ἐπιμείνωσιν τῇ Y ἀπιστίᾳ, * ἐγκεντρισθήσονται" δυνα- ϑιοὰ ν 50) κι ͵΄ ¢ \ ͵΄ ΄ 5 =ch. χῖν. 4 τὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς πάλιν * ἐγκεντρίσαι αὐτούς" τεῦ. 9 ’ \ \ 5 a b a ΄ ΟΥ̓͂Σ , k 2 meee 1 24 εἰ yap σὺ ἐκ τῆς ὃ᾽ κατὰ ὃ φύσιν ' ἐξεκόπης * ἀγρι- ire vic. , \ \ , > , > Matt. iii. 10 ἐλαίου καὶ ' παρὰ ‘dvow * ἐνεκεντρίσθης εἰς ™KaAN~ | L. +30. vu. . 4 ges n ya “p Ὁ. a; οὖ ΗΝ ἘΣ, iii. 8. ἔλαιον, ἢ πόσῳ ™ μᾶλλον οὕτοι ° οι κατὰ φύσιν xvii. i 7,9. 2 . xi. 12 only. Deut. vii. 5. Kever:: 17. 1 ch. i. 26 (reff.) only. xis heve only +. Aristot. de Plant. i. 6. n ver. 12, 0 ellips., ch. iv. 14 al. φείσηται, ὑποτεμνόμενος τοῦ λόγου Td φορτικὸν TH ἀμφιβολίᾳ) Thdrt [Antch,] ΤῊ] Ge Iren-int, Cypr, Ambrst: om (corrn to avoid fut. with μη πως Ὁ) ABCR[P 47-txt] copt Damase [Ors, Antch, Orig-int, ] Aug. rec φεισήται, with Chr-montf, Chr-c, ΤῊ] (ec: txt [A] B(sic) CDFL[P |X rel Chr-2-mss, Thdrt Antch, Damasc. 22. ins του bef [1st] θεου B. rec amoTouiay (see note), with DFL &*(but ν erased) rel [vulg] Clem, Eus, Chr, Thdrt Phot, (Cyr, Orig-int, Hil, Ambrst]: txt ABC®! (Orig,) Damase. rec χρηστότητα, with D*[and lat | FL rel {vulg | Clem Chr Cyr[-p,] Thdrt Phot [Orig-int, Hil, Ambrst]: -rn7os(sic) N: txt ABC D![-gr arm | (Orig,) Eus, Damasc. rec om θεου (see note), with D?-3FL rel demid Syr [syr goth ΘΒ} Clem, Orig,[(-int,) (Eus,) Cyr,] Chr, Thdrt [Hil, Ambrst Augszpe]t ins ABCD'® vulg copt arm Damase Pel. 23. rec καὶ εκεινοι, with L rel Chr, Thdrt: txt ABCDFX cd Καὶ [47] Damase. o θεος bef ἐστιν Lahk1 17. emiuew., emiueywow BD'IN?}, (ἔσται) verentis quidem est ne quid nune sit (futurum sit), sed indicantis simul, putare, se ita esse (futurum esse), ut veretur.’ See Winer, edn. 6, § 56. 2. Ὁ. β, and 64. i. 7. a, also Col. ii. 8; Heb. iii. 12. 22.) The caution of the preceding verse is unfolded into a setting before the Gentile of the true state of the matter. Behold therefore ( posito, that thou enterest into the feeling prompted by the last verse) the goodness and the severity (no allusion to ἀποτέμνω in its literal sense) of God :—towards those who fell (see on ver. 11. Here the πεσόντες are opposed to σύ, the figure being for the moment dropped: for πίπτειν can hardly be used of the branches, but of men) severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God (the nominatives here, as involving a departure from the construction, are pre- ferable: and the repetition of θεοῦ is quite in the manner of the Apostle: see 1 Cor. i. 24, 25. Riickert thinks that because Clem. Alex. Padag. i. 8 [70], p. 140 P., under- stands χρηστότης, in ἐὰν ἐπιμείνῃς τῇ χρηστότητι, of the χρηστότης of men (τουτέστι τῇ εἰς χριστὸν πίστει), θεοῦ may have been a marginal gloss to guard against this mistake, and may have found its way into the text, misplaced. But this is hardly probable: θεοῦ is much more likely to have been erased as unnecessary), if thou abide by (retf.) that goodness ; for ({supply otherwise : | assuming that thou Vou. II. for επιμειν., επιμενης BD'IN. for dost not abide by that goodness) thou also shalt be cut off (ind. fut. The placing only a comma at ἐκκοπήσῃ, as Meyer,— not Lachm. (ed. 2) and Tischend. (ed. 7 [and 8]),—prevents the break evidently intended between the treatment of the case of the Gentile and that of the Jews). 23.| And they moreover, if they continue not (not exactly the same mean- ing as before: the χρηστότης before being external and objective, this, as in ch. vi. 1, a subjective state) in their (see on ver. 20) unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. Some, e.g. Grot., represent this last clause as imply- ing, that God’s power to, graft them in again has always been the same, but has waited for their change of mind, to act: ‘Nihil est preter incredulitatem quod Deum impediat eos rursum pro suis as- sumere et paterne tractare :'—but surely De W.’s interpretation is far better :— ‘The Apostle obscurely includes in the ἔγκεντρ. the removal of their unbelief and the awakening of faith, and this last espe- cially he looks for from above :’—for, as he observes, the power of God would not be put forward, if the other were the mean- ing. 24.] For (proof that, besides God’s undoubted power to re-engraft them, the idea of their being so re-engrafted is not an unreasonable one) if THOU wast cut off from the olive-tree which is by FF XI. 25 PO’ yap θέλω 434. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. penis ἐἐγκεντρισθήσονται τῇ ἰδίᾳ ὃ ἐλαίᾳ. 1 Cor. ἐς ὌΝ ΓΞ Ρ > A ye 2 ¥ , \ q 7 a “ \ nil 2Cor. ὑμᾶς Ρ ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, TO “ μυστήριον τοῦτο, ἵνα μὴ iv. 13. q = see note. ch. xvi. 25 al. Dan. ii. 18. r Matt. xxv. 2, &c. only+. (-ροῦν, ver. 7.) ἦτε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς " φρόνιμοι, OTL ὃ πώρωσις * ἀπὸ ' μέρους τῷ if | \ s u " Φ \ Vv ΄ a 26 ~ σραὴλ, γέγονεν “aypis ov τὸ “πλήρωμα τῶν ἐεθνων Gen. xli. 33. w. ἐν, 1 Cor. iv. 10. w. παρά, ch. xii. 16. Prov. iii. 7. tch. xv. 15, 24. 2 Cor. i. 14. ii. 5 only. P. s Mark iii. 5. Eph. iv. 18 Josh. xviii. 20. see 1 Cor. xiii. 9, ἄς. xiv. 27. Heb. ix. 5. u constr.,1 Cor. xi. 26. Gal. iii. 19 al. v = here only}. (ver. 12.) : 25. θελω bef yap N: θελω Se (omg yap) m. [μας F-gr(not 6). om μὴ A}, rec (for ev) map (see ch. xii. 19), with CDLN rel Thdor-mops, Chr, Thdrt [Orig-int,]: om F 47. 67? latt copt (Hil, Ambrst Augsepe]: txt AB goth[?] Damase. for axpis, axpt ΒΒ}. nature wild, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall these, the natural branches, be engrafted in their own olive-tree? It is a question, as Tholuck remarks, whether κατὰ φύσιν and mapa φύσιν denote merely growth in the natural manner and growth (by engrafting) 7m an unnatural (i.e. artificial) manner,—or that the wild is the nature of the Gentile, and the good olive that of the Jew, so that the sense would be—‘If thou wert cut out of the wild olive which is thine naturally, and wert engrafted contrary to (thy) nature into the good olive, how much more shall these, the natural branches,’ &e. But then the latter part of the sentence does not correspond with the former. We either should expect the of to be omitted (as is done in some mss.), or must, with Fritz., place a comma after οὗτοι, and, taking of as the relative, construe, ‘How much more these, who shall, agreeably to (their) na- ture, be grafted,’ ἄς. Tholuck describes the question as being between a compari- son of engrafting and not engrafting, and one of engrafting the congruovs and the incongruous : and, on the above ground, decides in favour of the former,— κατὰ φύσιν signifying merely natural growth, παρὰ φ., unnatural growth, i.e. the growth of the grafted scion. But however this may fit the former part of the sentence, it surely cannot satisfy the requirements of the latter, where the κατὰ φύσιν (κλάδοι) are described as being engrafted (which would be παρὰ φύσιν) into their own olive- tree. We must at least assume a mixture of the two meanings, the antithesis of κατὰ and παρὰ φ. being rather verbal than lo- gical,—as is so common in the writings of the Apostle. Thus in the former case, that of the Gentile, the fact of natural growth is set against that of engrafted growth : whereas in the latter, the fact of congruity of nature (τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐλαίᾳ) is set against in- congruity,—as making the re-engrafting more probable. 25—32.]| Prophetic announcement that this re-engrafting SHALL ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE (25—27), and explanatory justification of this divine arrangement (28—32). 25. | For (I do not rest this on mere hope or probability, but have direct revelation of the Holy Spirit as to its certainty) I would not have you ignorant, brethren (see reff..—used by the Apostle to an- nounce, either as here some authoritative declaration of divine truth, or some facts in his own history not previously known to his readers), of this mystery (pvor. Tholuck in his 4th edition classifies the meanings thus: (1) such matters of fact, as are inaccessible to reason, and can only be known through revelation: (2) such matters as are patent facts, but the process of which cannot be entirely taken in by the reason. He adds a third sense,—that, which is no mystery zz étself, but by ts figurative import. Of the first, he cites chap. xvi. 25; 1 Cor. ii. 7—10; Eph. i. 9; iii. 4; vi. 19; Col. 1. 26, al., as examples: of the second, 1 Cor. xiv. 2; xiii. 2; Eph. v. 32; 1 Tim. iii. 9, 16: of the third, Matt. xiii. 11; Rev. i. 20; xvii. 5; 2 Thess. ii. 7. The first meaning is evidently that in our text :—‘a prophetic event, unattainable by human kaowledge, but revealed from the secrets of God’) that ye be not wise in your own conceits (that ye do not take to yourselves the credit for wisdom superior to that of the Jews, in having acknowledged and accepted Jesus as the Son of God,—seeing that ye merely ἠλεήθητε TH τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ, ver. 30),— that hardening (not ‘dlindness:’ see above on ver. 7, and Eph. iv. 18 note) has hap- pened in part (Calvin explains it ‘qguodam- modo... .qua particula voluisse mihi dun- taxat videtur temperare verbum alioqui per se asperum,’—but there is no trace of such a desire above, ver. 7 ;—the tives ver. 17 establishes the ordinary acceptation, that a portion of Israel have been hardened. ἀπὸ p. may be joined with πώρωσις, or with γέγονεν : from the arrangement of the words, best with the former) to Israel, until (ἄχρις οὗ has been variously rendered by those who wish to escape from the pro- phetic assertion of the restoration of Israel. ABCD | FLRab edfgh kimn 017 [47] ΠΡΟΣ ῬΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. 4.35 εἰξέλθῃ, 5 καὶ ἡ οὕτως πᾶς ᾿Ισραὴχ σωθήσεται, καθὼς w=cn.v.1 rei. So Calv.: “donee non infert temporis progressum vel ordinem, sed potius valet perinde ac si dictum foret, τ plenitudo gentium ;”—al., “while.... shall come in: but Thol. well observes that ἄχρ. οὗ with an ind., if any thing actually happen- ing is spoken of, may have the meaning of ‘while, even with an aor.: but with a subj. of the aorist, a possible future event is indicated, which when zt enters puts an end to the former: see reff.) the comple- tion of the Gentiles shall have come in (scil. to the Church or Kingdom of God, where we, the Apostle and those whom he addresses, are already: as we use the word ‘come in’ absolutely, with reference to the place in which we are. Or the word may be used absolutely, as it seems to be in Luke xi. 52, of entering into the King- dom of God. In order to understand τὸ πλήρ. τ. ἐθν., we must bear in mind the character of the Apostle’s present argu- ment. He is dealing with nations: with the Gentile nations, and the Jewish nation. And thus dealing, he speaks of τὸ πλήρ. τ. ἐθν. coming in, and of πᾶς ᾿Ισραήλ being saved: having xo regard for the time to the zndividual destinies of Gentiles or Jews, but regarding nations as each included under the common bond of consanguinity according to the flesh. The πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν 1 would regard then as signifying ‘the full number, ‘the totality,’ of the nations, i. e. every nation under heaven, the prophetic subjects (Matt. xxiv. 14) of the preaching of the gospel. Stuart denies that πλήρωμα will admit of this meaning. But the sense which he allows to it of ““ comple- tion, i.q. πλήρωσις ” (?), amounts in this case to the same thing: that completion not arriving till a// have come in: the πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν importing that which πληροῖ τὰ ἔθνη. The idea of an elect num- ber, however true in itself (‘ plenitudo gentium in his intrat, qui secundum pro- positum vocati,’ Aug. cited by Tholuck), does not seem to belong to this passage). 26.] And thus (when this condition shall have been fulfilled) all Israel shall be saved (Israel as a nation, see above: not individuals,—nor is there the slightest ground for the notion of the ἀποκατάστα- ous). This prophecy has been very vari- ously regarded. Origen, understanding by the ‘omnis Israel qui salvus fiet,’ the ‘re- liquize que electe sunt,’ yet afterwards ap- pears to find in the passage his notion of the final purification of all men,—of the believing, by the word and doctrine : of the unbelieving, by purgatorial fire. Chry- sostom gives no explanation: but on our Lord’s words in Matt. xvii. 11, he says, ὅταν εἴπῃ ὅτι ᾿λίας μὲν ἔρχεται K. ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα, αὐτὸν λίαν φησί, κ. τὴν τότε ἐσομένην τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ertatpoprv,—and shortly after calls him Tis δευτέρας παρουσίας πρόδρομος, Simi- larly Theodoret and Gregory of Nyssa (in Thol.) ; so also Augustine, de Civ. Dei xx. 29, vol. vii. p. 704,—‘ ultimo tempore ante judicium (per Eliam, exposita sibi lege) Judzeos in Christum verum esse cre- dituros, celeberrimum est in sermonibus cordibusve fidelium.’ Similarly most of the fathers ( Estius), and schoolmen (Thol.) ; —Jerome, however, on Isa. xi. 11, vol. iv. p. 162, says, ‘Nequaquam juxta nostros Judaizantes, in fine mundi quum intraverit plenitudo gentium, tunc omnis Israel salvus fiet : sed heee omnia de primo intelligamus adventu.’ Grotius and Wetst. believe it to have been fulfilled after the destruction of Jerusalem, when μυρίοι ἐκ περιτομῆς bes came believers in Christ (Eus. H. E. iii. 35). But Thol. has shewn that neither could the number of Gentiles received inte the Church before that time have answered to the πλήρωμα τ. ἐθνῶν, nor those Jews to mas Ἰσραήλ, which expression accordingly Grotius endeavours to explain by a Rab- binical formula, that “all Israel have a part in the Messiah ;” which saying he supposes the Apostle to have used in a spiritual sense, meaning the Israel of God, as Gal. vi. 16. The Reformers for the most part, in their zeal to impugn the mille- narian superstitions then current, denied the future general conversion of the Jews, and would not recognize it even in this passage :— Luther did so [recognize 10], at one time, but towards the end of his life spoke most characteristically and strongly of what he conceived to be the impossibility of such national conversion (see extract in Tholuck’s note, p. 616) :—Calvin says: ‘Multi accipiunt de populo Judaico, ac si Paulus diceret instaurandum adhue in religionem ut prius : sed ego Israelis nomen ad totum Dei populum extendo, hoe sensu, © Quum Gentes ingresse fuerint, simul et Judzi ex defectione se ad fidei obedientiam recipient. Atque ita complebitur salus totius Israelis Dei, quem ex utrisque colligi oportet : sic tamen ut priorem locum Jude obtineant, ceu in familia Dei primogeniti.’ Calovius, Bengel, and Olshausen, interpret mas Ἴσρ. of the elect believers of Israel: —Beza, Estius, Koppe, Reiche, Kéllner, Meyer, Tholuck, De Wette, al., hold that the words refer, as I have explained them above, to a national restoration of Israel to God’s favour. I have nct mixed with Fr32 450 x ch. vii. 24 1 Thess. iii. Sal. y Acts iii. 26 reff. τ ch. i. 18 reff. al Johny. 2. w. ἐάν, 1 John ii. 3. b = Luke i. 72. Acts iii. 25. Ps. xxiv. 14. 9. Sir. xlvii. 11. al. Ps. evii. 6. 16. vi. 23. e = Gal. iv. 16. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. k / \ am | a an θ “ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ ᾿ κλῆσις τοῦ θεοῦ. c mid., Luke xvi. 3 only. Hos. ii. 9. XI. “ ’ \ e , ἢ γέγραπται “Ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ * ῥυόμενος, Y ἀποστρέψει Ζ > / ’ \ | »3° ΟἿ \ a “ 3 tal ς » ,’ a ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ ᾿Ιακώβ' "51 καὶ δ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ , 4 > / \ a » διαθήκη, "ὅταν “᾿ ἀφέλωμαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. 38 κατὰ \ > / 5 Ἃ id “ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον “ ἐχθροὶ δι᾿ ὑμᾶς, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἴ ἐκλογὴν \ Eayarntot διὰ τοὺς » πατέρας. 29 i ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρ τὰ 30 ὥςπερ γὰρ ὑμεῖς d Heb. χ. 4. Isa. xxvii. f ch. ix. 11 reff. g Matt. iii. 17. ch. i. 7 i 2 Cor. vii. 10 only τ. k ch. v. 15, 26. rec.ins καὶ bef ἀποστρεψει (as LXX), with 1)5.31, rel [latt syrr copt arm] Orig, Chr, Thdrt: om ABC D![-gr] FX [47 eth Euthal-ms, Damase].—aroorpevar F goth. 30. om ver XN! [ins X-corr? |. rec ins καὶ bef υμεις, with D2-°LN? rel vulg syrr [arm] Chr(-montf and 2-mss): om ABC D!/and lat] F &-corr! [ἃ 47] copt goth zth the consideration of this prophecy the question of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, as being clearly irrelevant to it: the matter here treated being, their recep- tion into the Church of God. καθὼς yéyp.| This quotation appears to have for its object to shew that the Redeemer was to come for the behoof of God’s own chosen people. For ἐκ Σιών, the LXX have ἕνεκεν Σιών (i385), the E. V. ‘to Zion.’ The Apostle frequently varies from the LXX, and a sufficient reason can generally be assigned for the variation: here, though this reason is not apparent, we cannot doubt that such existed, for the LXX would surely have suited his purpose even better than ἐκ, had there been no objection to it. It may be that the whole citation is intended to express the sense of prophecy rather than the wording of any particular passage, and that the Apostle has, in ἐκ Σιών, summed up the prophecies which declare that the Redeemer should spring out of Israel. 6 pudp. is in the Heb. ‘a deliverer ’"—the Apostle adopts the LXX, probably as appropriating the expression to Christ. ἀἄποστρ. «.7.A.| Heb. and E. V. ‘ and unto them that turn from trans- gression in Jacob, ὅταν ἀφέλ. from another place in Isa. (ref.),—hardly from Jer. xxxi. (LXX, xxxviii.) 34, as Stuart ;— and also containing a general reference to the character of God’s new covenant with them, rather than a strict reproduction of the original meaning of any particular words of the prephet. ‘ How came the Apostle, if he wished only to express the general thought, that the Messiah was come for Israel, to choose just this cita- tion, consisting of two combined passages, when the same is expressed more directly in other passages of the Old Testament? 1 believe that the ἥξει gave occasion for the quotation : if he did not refer this directly to the second coming of the Messiah, yet it allowed of being indirectly applied to it.” Tholuck. 28.] With regard indeed tothe gospel (i.e. ‘ viewed from the gospel side,’ looked on as we must look on them if we confine our view solely to the prin- ciples and character of the Gospel), they (the Jewish people considered as a whole) are enemies (θεοῦ : not μου, as Theodoret, Luther, Grot., al.—scil. in a state of exclusion from God’s favour: not active, ‘enemies to God,’ as Grot., Bengel) for your sakes; but with regard to the election (viz. of Israel to be God’s people, see vv. 1, 2—not that of Christians, as Aug. al.:—i.e. ‘looked on as God’s elect people’), they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes (i.e. not for the merits of the fathers, but because of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so often referred to by God as a cause for His favourable remem- brance of Israel). 29.) For (explana- tion how God’s favour regards them still, though for the present cast off) the gifts (generally) and calling (as the most excellent of those gifts. That calling seems to be intended ‘qua posteros Abrahz in foedus adoptavit Deus,’ Calv. A very similar sentiment is found ch. iii. 3, where the same is called ἡ πίστις τ. θεοῦ. But the words are true not only of this calling, but of every other. Bengel says, ‘ dona, erga Judeos: vocatio, erga gentes :’ simi- larly of κλῆσις, De W., ‘die Berufung burd) das Ev.” But thus the point of the argument seems to be lost, which is, that the Jews being once chosen as God’s people, will never be entirely cast off) [of God cannot be repented of, i. e.] are irretractable (do not admit of a change of purpose. The E. V., ‘ without repentance,’ is likely to mislead. Compare Hosea xiii. 14). 30] For (illustra- tion of the above position) 88 ye (manu- script evidence is too decided against the καί to allow of its being retained: but we ABCD FLRab cdtgh klmn 017 [47] “νυν nev. C. ABDF LNabec dtghk Imno 17 | 47] 27—33. ™ πγοτὲ » P ἀπειθείᾳ, 51 οὕτως καὶ οὗτοι νῦν " ἠπείθησαν, τῷ 3 ὑμετέρῳ “ ct ἐ Υ̓ 5 / 5 vA \ Ρ] \ ο =r θῶ ἔλεει S va καὶ αὐτοὶ ° ἐλεηθῶσιν. θεὸς " τοὺς ο ἐλεήσῃ. “35 ὦ Κ᾽ βάθος 5" πλούτου καὶ 533 σοφίας καὶ ¥*® γνώ- Tose we ets τ. 10. r Luke i. 50, &c. ch. ix. 23. t Luke v.6. Gal. iii. 22, 23 only. ἀμηχανίαν συγκλεισθείς, Diod. Sic. V Gor ix. 22. x17. 2 Cor: v.10; 14: aly) isa. vil. 11» x ‘ch. ii. 4 reff. iii. 10. 41 Cor. xii. 8. Eph. ii. 4. Josh. vi. 1 al. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS.. ΄ 5 3 / ν πάντας ἃ εἰς Ῥ ἀπείθειαν, ἵνα Prov. xxi. 10: Hos. ii. 23 (25) A 6. Heb. iv. 6, 11 only t. (-θής, ch. i. 30.) constr., ver. 20. Ps. exliii. 2. ἘΠΕ 1 Eph. iv. 13. Phil. ii. 437 » aretOno-are τῷ θεῷ, νῦν δὲ ο ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων m -- John ἴα. 13. ch. vii. 9 al. n = ch. ii. 8. x. 21. Deut. xxi. 20. o ch. ix. 15, &c, Paes Matt. ats 1 Cor; vii. 25. 2 Cor. iv. 1. 1 Tim. i. 13, p here bis. Eph. ii. 2. ν. 6. Col. iii. q = 1Cor. xv. 31. see ch. xv. 4. s inversion of words, 2 Cor. ii. 4 reff. u here only. Ps. lxxvii. 50,62. εἰς τοιαύτην So Dion. Hal. vill. p. 520. Polyb. iii. 63. 3, and fr. 21. P. w ch. viii. 39. Eph. iii. 18 y Rev. v. 12 only. z=1Cor.i.21. Eph. 32 τὰ συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ v | y TOUS TAVTaS b 1 Cor. xiii. 2. Chr-2-mss; ] Damasce ΤῊ] [ Orig-int,] Jer Augsepe.—mote bef vuers A: ποτε και ὑμεις 1 P κω μ b o. vuve B Chr,. avro. ins votepov 5. 17. 98: BD!(&) {copt] Damase.—om αὐτοι XN}. 32. for Ist τοὺς mavras, ta παντα D!, παντα F [Tren,: [Ambrszpe ]. may suspect that it has been struck out as superfluous, in ignorance (Thol.) of the Greek usage which often doubles καί in two parallel clauses) in times past were disobedient to God (nationally—as Gen- tiles, before the Gospel) but now have (lit. ‘were compassionated,’ historical) received mercy (scil. by admission into the church of God) through (as the occasion; the breaking off of the natural branches giving opportunity for the grafting in of you) the disobedience of these (i.e. unbelief, con- sidered as an act of resistance to the divine will: see 1 John iii. 23), so these also have now (under the Gospel) disobeyed (are now in a state of unbelieving disobedience), in order that through the mercy shewed to you (viz. on occasion of the fulness of the Gentiles coming in) they also may have merey shewn them (‘the objective view corresponding to the subjective eis τὸ παρα(ζ(ηλῶσαι αὐτούς, ver 11.’ De W.). Some place the comma after ἐλέει instead of ἠπείθησαν, and construe, either, as Erasm., Calv., al., ‘they have disobeyed through (upon occasion of) the mercy shewn to you,’ or as Vulg., Luth., Estius, al., ‘they have become disobedient to the mercy shewn to you. But thus the parallelism is weakened, and the μυστήριον of ver. 25 lost sight of. Examples of the emphatic word being placed before ἵνα are found in reff. 82. ] For (foundation of the last stated arrangement in the divine purposes) God shut up (not shut up together; σύν, as in so many cases, implying, not co-par- ticipation on the part of the subjects of the action, but the character of the action itself: so in ‘concludere.’ The sense is here as in the examples, which might be multiplied by consulting Schweig- heuser’s Index to Polyb., ‘to involve in,’ cweabnee C (m ?) Thl. 31. for ουτοι, αυτοι D'F [syr-marg Cyr-p,: istz latt Orig-int, Ambrst]. παλιν Cyr[-p, |; aft vuv (possibly mechanical repetition) omnia} latt Iren-int, ‘to subject to.’ The aor., which should be kept in the rendering, refers to the time of the act in the divine procedure) all (the reading τὰ πάντα has probably been in- troduced from Gal. iii. 22) men in (into) disobedience (general here,—every form, unbelief included), that He may have mercy on all. No mere permissive act of God must here be understood. The Apostle is speaking of the divine arrangement by which the guilt of sin and the mercy of God were to be made manifest. He treats it, as elsewhere (see ch. ix. 18 and note), entirely with reference to the act of God, taking no account, for the time, of human agency ; which however, when treating of us and our responsibilities, he brings out into as prominent a position: see as the most eminent example of this, the closely following ch. xii. 1, 2. But there re- mains some question, who are the ot πάντες of both clauses? Arethey thesame? And if so, 7s any support giver to the notion of an ἀποκατάστασις of all men? Certainly they are identical: and‘signify ali men, without limitation. But the ultimate dif- ference between the all men who are shut up under disobedience, and the all men upon whom mercy is shewn is, that by all men this mercy is not accepted, and so men become self-excluded from the salvation of God. Gop’s ACT remains the same, equally gracious, equally uni- versal, whether men accept His mercy or not. This contingency is here not in view: but simply God’s act itself. We ean hardly understand the οἱ πάντες na- tionally. The marked universality of the expression recalls the beginning of the Epistle, and makes it a solemn conclusion to the argumentative portion, after which the Apostle, overpowered with the view 458 ΠΡΟΣ ῬΡΩΜΔΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. ΧΙ, 34—36. 6 a e ο > / \ d / >’ “ \ e ᾽ chereonly+. σεως θεοῦ, ὡς “ ἀνεξεραύνητα τὰ ἃ κρίματα αὐτοῦ καὶ © ἀνεξ- Proy. xxy. , ς f< \ ; a 3symm. φγνίαστοι αἱ ἴ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ. Sa geet + Ε Σ et. 1. . ἃ ch. ν.16. Ps. μ) τις exviii. 75. e Eph. ili. 8 only. Joby. f = Acts xiii. 10. h here only. 2 Macc. vii. 37 only.) 9. ix. 10. xxxiv, 24 only. ii. 16, from Isa. xl. 13. 14 AN Ald. (4 Kings vi. 11. 35.) Luke xiv. 14 bis. 1 Thess, iii. 9. 2 Thess. i. 6 only. L.P.H. Isa. Ixiii. 7. 33. ins του bef θεου F 17. 34. for κυριου, θεου D'(and lat!) Zeno,. of the divine Mercy and Wisdom, breaks forth into the sublimest apostrophe evist- ing even in the pages of Inspiration itself. 33—36. | Admiration of the good- ness and wisdom of God, and humble ascription of praise to Him. 33. | There is some doubt whether σοφίας and γνώσεως are genitives after πλούτου, as in E, V., or parallel with it. The former view is adopted by Thom. Aquin., Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Reiche, and al. The grounds on which Reiche supports it are thus given and refuted by Tholuck: (1) “If these three genitives are co-ordinate, καί must stand either before all, or before the last only.” But in the case of three nouns placed co-ordinately in this manner, καί is prefixed to the two latter only, see ch. ii. 7; xii. 2; Luke v.17. (2) ““πλοῦτος is no qualitative idea, but only a quantitative idea.” But wherein the riches consist, is ordinarily indicated by the context; and here there can be but littie doubt on the matter, if we compare ch. x. 12; in Phil. iv. 19 we also read of the πλοῦτος of God. This also answers (3) “that πλοῦτος without an adjunct expresses no definite attribute of God.” (4) “in the following citation, vv. 34, 35, two only of these, copia and γνῶσις, are mentioned.” But this may be doubted. Chrys. says, on ver. 36, αὐτὸς εὗρεν, αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν, αὐτὸς συγκροτεῖ. Kal γὰρ καὶ πλούσιός ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δεῖται παρ᾽ ἑτέρου λαβεῖν: καὶ σοφός ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δεῖται συμ- βούλου. τί λέγω συμβούλου ; οὐδὲ εἰδέναι τις δύναται τὰ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ μόνος αὐτὸς ὁ πλούσιος Kk. σοφός. Hom. xix. p. 653. Perhaps this latter is altogether too fine- drawn; but it is favoured by Bengel, Olsh., and Tholuck. I prefer therefore the view of Chrys,, Theodoret, Grot., Bengel, Tholuck, Kéllner, and Olsh.,—to take πλούτου, σοφίας, γνώσεως, as three co-ordinate genitives: mA. denoting the riches of the divine goodness, in the whole, and in the result just arrived at, ver. 32: σοφ., the divine wisdom of pro- ceeding in the apparently intricate vicissi- tudes of nations and individuals: γνώσ. (if Heb. iii. 10. Rey. xv. 3. Ps. xvii. 21. 2 Kings xy. 12. 34. / \ » 8 fal / TIS γὰρ ἔγνω ἕνουν κυρίου; ΄, wn 3 7 ; / "σύμβουλος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ; 85 ἢ τίς + προέδωκεν > a“ \ k ᾽ 7 > A 86 “ ] 5 > a \ αὐτῷ καὶ ὃ ἀνταποδοθήσεται αὐτῷ; 59 ὅτι 1 ἐξ αὐτοῦ Kal 51 Cor. Jos xli. 3 Heb. = Isa. xl. k ch. xii. 19. (and Heb. x. 30, from Deut, xxxii. 7 11 Cor. viii. 6. i here only. (ανεξεραυνητα, so ABIN.) a distinction be necessary, which can hardly be doubted) the divine knowledge of all things from the beginning,—God’s com- prehension of the end and means together in one unfathomable depth of Omniscience. How unsearchable are His judg- ments (the determinations of His wisdom, regarded as in the divine Mind; answering perhaps to γνῶσις. So Thol.: De W. how- ever denies this meaning to κρίματα, and renders it decrees, referring it to the blind- ing of the Jews) and His ways unable to be traced out (His methods of proceed- ing, answering to σοφία, Thol. But this is perhaps too subtle). 34. | For (con- firmation of ἀνεξερ. and ἄνεξιχν. by a cita- tion from Scripture. It is made from two separate places in the LXX, more perhaps as a reminiscence than as a direct quota- tion) who hath known the mind (γνῶσις, but see above) of the Lord ? or who hath been His counsellor (σοφία 9) ἢ 35. | or who hath previously given to Him, and it shall be repaid to him *—from Job xli. 3 (11 E. V.), where the LXX (xli.2) have tis (add ἐστιν ὃς A) ἀντιστήσεταί μοι, κ. ὑπομενεῖ; But the Heb. is ὈΞΦΝῚ 22977 Ὁ, ‘who hath anticipated (i,e. by the con- text, conferred a benefit on) me, that I may repay him?’ And to this the Apostle alludes, using the third person. We can hardly doubt that this ques- tion refers to the freeness and richness of God’s mercy and love, 36.] For (ground of vv. 33—35. Well may all this be true of Him, for) of Him (in their origin :—* quod dicit, “ex ipso,” hoe ip- sum, quod sumus indicat: Orig. Chrys. somewhat differently: see above on ver. 33), and through Him (in their subsistence and disposal: —** per Ipsum,” quod per ejus providentiam dispensamur in vita:” Orig.), and unto Him (‘“in Ipso,” (so Vulg, and some other vss.) quod perfectio omnium et finis in Ipso erit tune, cum erit Deus omnia in omnibus:’ Orig.) are all things (not only, though chiefly, men,—but the whole creation). Origen remarks, ‘ Vides, quo- modo in ultimis ostendit, quod in omnibus que supra dixit signaverit, mysterium Tri- [P ὠω- car ...} bb ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 459 lal \ Ψ » , a ΄ ἰδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ets αὐτὸν ππτὰ πάντα αὐτῷ ἡ " δόξα « -- σοι. τ6. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν. XII. 1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς. ἀδελφοί, 4 οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, " παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν ca / S. lal lal θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, " εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν ' λογικὴν iii, 21. 10. 2Cor. x. 1. xiii. 15. 1 Thess. iv. 2. o == and constr., Acts xxiv. 4. xxvii. 34 al. r Luke ii. 22. ch. vi. 13, ἄς. Rev. iv. 11]. Job viii. 3. n = Luke ii. 14. xvii. 18. John ix. 24. Acts xii. 23. Jude 25 al. Ps. xcv. 7. ellips., ch. xvi. 27. Gal. i. 5. Eph. p = ch. xv. 30. i Cor. i. Col. iii. 12. Heb. x. 28 only. Isa. s here bis. ch. xiv. 18. 2 Cor. v. Ρ διὰ τῶν 2 Cor. ΟΣ Phil. ii. 1. PSs ΎΛΕΣ 9. Eph.v.10. Phil. iv.18, Col. iii.20. Tit. ii.9. Heb. xiii.21 only +. Wisd. iv. 10. ix. 10 only. (-τως, Heb. xii. 28 only. -Tetv, Heb. xi. 5.) t 1 Pet. ii. 2 only +. προςφέρουσιν (οἱ ἄγγελοι) κυρίῳ... λογικὴν . . προςφοράν, Test. xii. Patrum, p. 547 Ὁ. 36. aft awvas ins των awvwy FG? [fuld demid tol spec,(om,) Syr Orig-int, Cypr, Hil, ]. Cuar. XII. 1. tw θεω bef evaperrov A[P]X! vulg [spec Damasc Orig-int, Ambr, Ambrst] Augszpe. nitatis. Sicut enim in presenti loco quod ait, “quoniam ex Ipso, et per Ipsum, et in Ipso sunt omnia:” convenit illis dictis, que idem Apostolus in aliis memorat locis, cum dicit (1 Cor. viii.6): “‘Unus Deus Pater ex quo omnia, et unus Dominus nos- ter Jesus Christus, per quem omnia :” et item in Spiritu Dei dicit revelari omnia, et per heec designat, in omnibus esse pro- videntiam Trinitatis: ita et cum dicit ‘‘alti- tudo divitiarum,” Patrem, ex quo omnia dicit esse, significat: et sapientic altitu- dinem, Christum, qui est sapientia ejus, ostendit: et scientiz altitudinem, Spiritum Sanctum, qui etiam alta Dei novit, decla- rat.’ And, if this be rightly understood,— not of a formal allusion tothe Three Per- sons in the Holy Trinity, but of an wmplicit reference (as 'Thol.) to the three attributes of Jehovah respectively manifested to us by the three coequal and coeternal Persons, — there can hardly be a doubt of its correct- ness. The objection of De Wette, that not eis, but ἐν, would be the designation of the Holy Spirit-and His relation to the Uni- verse, applies to that part of Origen’s Com- mentary which rests on the Vulg. a ipso and to the idea of a formal recognition : but not to Tholuck’s remark, illustrated from ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων κ. διὰ πάντων K. ἐν πᾶσιν ἡμῖν, Eph. iv. 6, as referring to εἷς θεός, εἷς κύριος, ἕν πνεῦμα. Only those who are dogmatically prejudiced can miss seeing that, though St. Paul has never definitively expressed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ᾿ in a definite formula, yet he was conscious of it as a living reality. XII. 1—XV. 18.] PracticaL EXHOR- TATIONS FOUNDED ON THE DOCTRINES BEFORE STATED. And first, ch. xii. gene- ral exhortations to a Christian life. 1.] οὖν may apply to the whole doctrinal portion of the Epistle which has preceded, which, see Eph. iv. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 1, seems the most natural connexion,—or to ch. xi. 35, 36 (so Olsh., Meyer), or to the whole close of ch. xi. (so Tholuck.) Theodoret remarks: ὅπερ ἔστιν ὀφθαλμὸς ἐν σώματι, τοῦτο τῇ ψυχῇ πίστις, καὶ τῶν θείων ἢ γνῶσις. δεῖται δὲ ὅμως αὕτη τῆς πρακτι- κῆς ἀρετῆς, καθάπερ ὃ ὀφθαλμὸς χειρῶν καὶ ποδῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μορίων τοῦ σώματος. τούτου δὲ χάριν ὃ θεῖος ἀπό- στολος τοῖς δογματικοῖς λόγοις καὶ τὴν ἠθικὴν διδασκαλίαν προΞςτέθεικε. διά] introduces, as in reff., an idea which is to give force to the exhortation. οἰκτιρμῶν | viz. those detailed and proved throuyhout the former part of the Epistle. δ αὐτῶν οὖν τούτων, φησί, παρακαλῶ. δι’ ὧν ἐσώθητε' ὥςπερ ἂν εἴ τις τὸν μεγάλα εὐεργετηθέντα ἐντρέψαι βουλόμενος, αὐτὸν τὸν εὐεργετήσαντα ἱκέτην ἀγάγοι. Chrys. Hom. xx. p. 606. παραστῆσαι] the regular word for bringing to offer in sacrifice (reff.). τ. σώματα Up. | Most Commentators say, merely for ὑμᾶς avtovs,—to suit the metaphor of a sacri- fice, which consisted of a body: some (Thol., al.), because the body is the ergan of practical activity, which practical ac- tivity is to be dedicated to God: better with Olsh.and De Wette,—as an indication that the sanctification of Christian life is ta extend to that part of man’s nature which is most completely under the bondage of sin. θυσίαν] Chrys. strikingly says, πῶς ἂν γένοιτο τὸ σῶμα, φησί, θυσία; μηδὲν ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρὸν βλεπέτω, καὶ γέγονε θυσία: μηδὲν ἣ γλῶσσα λαλείτω αἰσχρόν, καὶ γέγονε mpospopa μηδὲν ἣ χεὶρ πραττέτω παράνομον, καὶ γέγονεν ὁλοκαύτωμα. μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἡμῖν ἐργασίας δεῖ, ἵνα ἡ μὲν χεὶρ ἐλεημοσύνην ποιῇ, τὸ δὲ στόμα εὐλογῇ τοὺς ἐπηρεάζοντας, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ θείαις σχολάζῃ διηνεκῶς ἀκροάσεσιν. ἡ γὰρ θυσία οὐδὲν ἔχει ἀκάθαρτον, ἡ θυσία 440 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. GRE , co oa 9 \ \ , ὶ a nch.ix.dret, ἢ λατρείαν ὑμῶν, 3 Kal μὴ Y συνσχηματίζεσθαι τῷ Κ᾽ αἰῶνι v 1 Pet. i. 14 ͵7 > \ r nan Ἴ / nw ly +. La Σ y oulyt. τουτῷ,, ee, μεταμορφοῦσθαι τῇ ἀνα ei τοῦ < Σ a Ν a a Gorio. 2 νοός, ὃ εἰς TO ἢ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ii. 6 (bis) 416, Yo 4 θὸ Neg Se \ ghey 3 , Ἂν a \ L.P.only, τὸ ὥγαθον καὶ δ εὐάρεστον Kat “ τέλειον. λέγω γὰρ ἃ διὰ exc. τς ces an / a / “Ὁ al BES χὰ, τῆς ὁ χάριτος τῆς " δοθείσης μοι παντὶ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑμῖν, Ε Matt. xvii. 2 (| Mk. 2Cor.iii. 1S only +. Ps. xxxiii. 1 Symm. y Tit. iii. 5 only +. 2 =eh.d. cog Goh sls, a ch. iv. 11 reff. ,.. D Luke xiv. 19. 1 Cor, ili. 18. Eph.v.10, Phil. i. 10. Prov. xvii. 3. c = Matt. νυ. 48. χὶχ. 21. Phil. iii. 15 al. Gen. vi. 9. d = Gal. i. 15. iii. 18, iv. 23. Philem. 22. e 1 Cor. i. 4 reff. 2. (cvvexnu., So BIDFRN.) rec -σχηματιζεσθε and μεταμορῴφουσθε, with BIL[P] rel latt syrr copt goth [(ath) arm] Clem, Chr, Thdrt Damase [ Phot-e, Orig-int, Cypr, Ambrst]|: -a: and -e [ D?-3-gr] ἢ 17; -e and -αι δὲ ὁ οἱ : txt AB? D![-gr] Fg k ΤῊ]. awvio B. rec aft voos ins vuwr, with D§L[ PIX rel [latt syrr goth (ath) arm Cyr,] Thdrt [Damase Orig-int, Ambrst] Augsepe: om AB D!/-gr] F [47] copt Clem, Orig, ] Cypro. om 2nd του F. ἀπαρχὴ τῶν ἄλλων ἐστί. καὶ ἡμεῖς Tol- νυν καὶ χειρῶν καὶ ποδῶν καὶ στόματος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἀπαρχώμεθα τῷ θεῷ. Hom. xx. p. 656 f. ζῶσαν] In opposition to the Levitical θυσίαι, which were slain animals, Our great sacrifice, the Lord Jesus, having been slain for us, and by the shedding of His Blood perfect remission having been obtained διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν Tov θεοῦ, we are now enabled to be offered to God no longer by the shedding of blood, but as living sacrifices. This application of the figure of a sacrifice occurs in Philo, who (‘quod omnis probus liber,’ § 12, vol. ii., p. 457) describes the Essenes as οὐ ζῶα καταθύοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες. See also Jos. Antt. xviii. 1. 5. τῷ θεῷ belongs to εὐάρεστον, not to παραστῆσαι, τὴν λογικὴν λατρ. ὑμ.} “This may certainly be in apposition with θυσίαν (Reiche, Meyer), the acc. denoting the result and intention ;—@voia however alone can hardly be called a λατρεία, but παραστῆσαι θυσίαν may: therefore it is preferable to take the acc. as in apposition with the whole sentence, and supply some verb of exhorting: see 1 Tim. ii. 6; 2 Thess. i. 5.” Tholuck. λογικήν (reff.) is opposed to σαρκικήν, see Heb. vii. 16. So Chrys.,—ovdev ἔχουσαν σωματικόν, οὐδὲν παχύ, οὐδὲν αἰσθητόν. Theodoret, Grot., al., take it as ‘ having reason, ‘ra- tional,’ opposed to sacrifices of animals which have no reason: Photius, Basil, and Calvin, ‘rational,’ as opposed to super- stitious. But the former meaning is far the best, and answers to the πνευματικὰς θυσίας of 1 Pet. ii. 5. 2.) συνσχη- ματίζεσθαι is not imperative in sense, but dependent on παρακαλῷ. (Of course, in all such questions betwen ε and a, the confusing element of itacism comes in: but in no ease where both forms are equally adinissible in the text, can the mere sus- picion of itacism be allowed to decide the question.) 6 αἰὼν οὗτος, here, the whole world of the ungodly, as contrasted with the spiritual kingdom of Christ. The dat. ἀνακαινώσει is not the instrament by which, but the manner in which the metamorphosis takes place: that wherein it consists: compare περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ, Col. ii. 11. εἰς TO δο- κιμάζειν, that ye may prove, viz. in this process and the active Christian life accom- panying it, compare reff. Eph., Phil. : not ‘that ye may be able to prove,’ ‘acquire the faculty of proving,’ as Bucer, Olsh., Rickert: the Apostle is not speaking of ac- quiring wisdom here, but of practical proof by experience. τὸ ἀγαθ. κ. evap. K. τέλ. are not epithets of τὸ θέλημα τ. θεοῦ as in E. V., for in that case they would be superfluous, and in part (τέλειον) inappli- cable: but abstract neuters, see ver. 9, that ye may prove what 18 the will of God (viz. that which is) good and accept- able (to Him) and perfect. The non- repetition of the art. shews that the adjec- tives all apply to the same thing. 3—21.| Particular exhortations grounded on and expanding the foregoing general ones. ‘This is expressed by the γάρ, which resumes, and binds to what has preceded. And first, an exhortation to humility in respect of spiritual gifts, vv. 3—8. 8.) λέγω, a mild expression for ‘I com- mand: enforced as a command by διὰ τ. x...» ‘by means of my apostolic office,’ ‘of the grace conferred on me to guide and exhort the Church τ᾿ reff. παντὶ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑμ..,---ἃ strong bringing out of the individual application of the precept. οὐχὶ τῷ δεῖνι καὶ τῷ δεῖνι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄρχοντι κ. ἀρχομένῳ, Kk. δούλῳ κ. ἐλευ- θέρῳ, κ. ἰδιώτῃ κ. σοφῷ, kK. γυναικὶ κ. ἀνδρί, kK. νέῳ κ΄ γέροντι. Chrys. Hom. xx. p. 603. ABDF LEP |x abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] — Ὁ συυὰς 2—Bh, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS μὴ f Urepppovetv ὃ παρ᾽ ὃ δεῖ " φρονεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὃ φρονεῖν * εἰς 441 f here only +. Job xxxi. iy os A ς if rd - \ B , 7 πα σαν τα τὸ 'σωφρονεῖν, "ἑκάστῳ ὡς ὁ θεὸς * ἐμέρισεν τ μέτρον ULE aH ἢ ΄ \ > \ ΄ \ ire πίστεως. * πκαθάπερ yap ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι πολλὰ ° μέλη ἐμαί δ f \ Ν 7) 7 \ fal ΄ ἔχομεν, τὰ δὲ “μέλη πάντα οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει Ῥ πρᾶξιν, τον r00, 5 οὕτως 4 οἱ « πολλοὶ ἕν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν χριστῷ, τὸ δὲ ἴ καθ᾽ εἷς ἀλλήλων 5 μέλη. "χάριν τὴν ᾿ δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἃ διάφορα, " 6 ἔχοντες δὲ xxviii. 22 al. 2 Macc. xiv. 26. iy. 7 only t+. k and constr., 1 Cor. vii. 17. (111. 5.) 13. 2Cor. χ. 15: Heb. vii. 2. Proy. xxix, 24. n ch. iv. 6 reff. o ch. vi. 13 reff. (See 2 Macc. ix. 12.) constr. inf., 5 ᾿ δ * Matt. v. 39. χάρισματα, κατα τὴν ἔμεν = chy ἘΠῚ εἴτε ἡ προφητείαν, © τοῦ ἢ Acts i Mark v.15. Luke viii. 35. 2 Cor. v. 13. Tit. j i. 6.” Leen = Mark vi. 4. Luke xii, m 2 Cor. x.13. Eph. iv. 7, 13,16. = Paul only. p = here only. (Acts xix. 15 reff.) Sir. xi.10. Xen. {John viii. 9. 1 Rey. Mem. ii. 1. 6. gq = ch. y. Ip ΒΗ: r Mark xiv. 19. iv. 8. 3 Macc. v. 34. sch. v. 15. Vie cok ΩΝ οἰ ΩΣ, ΧΙ alee only, exc. 1 Pet. iv. 10 +. t ver. 3. u = Heb. ix. 10 (i. 4. viii. 6) only. Deut. xxii. 9. y so 1 Cor. iii. w = 1Cor. xii. 10. xiii. 2 41. (Rev,i. 3.) see Sir. xxiv. 33. 22. Col. i. 16, 8. aft xapiros ins του θεου Ld f m 5, 48. 67. 73. 113-4-5-20-4 fuld guelph [syr goth] eth arm Thi Augszpe. for 6, a B?: om παρ o Se dpovew F 70. bef o θεος (see 1 Cor vii. 17) A guelph ‘fam tol] Syr [Orig-int, Ambrst]. 4. for καθαπερ, wstep D'F. εμερισεν rec μελη bef πολλα, with AL[P] rel Chr, [ Bas, Antch, } Damase (ic : xt BDFN Jatt Thdrt ΤῊ] [Orig-int, Ambrst Augsepe ]- παντα bef weAn F(not G), so also vulg Syr [ Ambrst Augsepe |- 5. om εσμεν FB, rec (for τοὶ o (alteration to suit cis), with D2-3[L] rel vulg (and F-lat) Syr:Eus, Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] (Ee: txt ABD! F-gr ΝΡ 47-txt] Antch, Damase. [6. for δε, ουν P: enim Orig-int,. Sapepav D}, | μὴ ὕπερφρ. x.7.A.] There isa play on the words φρονεῖν, ὑπερφρονεῖν, and σωφρο- vety, which can only be clumsily conveyed - in another language: ‘not to be high- minded, above that which he ought to be minded, but to be so minded, as to be sober- minded.’ Wetst. quotes from Charondas in Stobeeus, Sentent. xlii., προσποιείσθω δὲ ἕκαστος τῶν πολιτῶν σωφρονεῖν μᾶλλον ἢ φρονεῖν,--- πὰ from Thucyd. il. 62, ---ἰέναι δὲ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ὁμόσε, μὴ φρονήματι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταφρονήματι. But φρονεῖν must ποῦ be taken, with Calvin, ‘admonet ut eatantum cogitemus et meditemur, que nos sobrios et modestos reddere potuerunt :’— the thoughts implied in it being, thoughts of one’s self. ἑκάστῳ ὡς ΞΞ as ἑκάστῳ (reff.), not (λέγω) ἑκάστῳ, ὡς. ...- μέτρον πίστεως is the receptivity of χαρίσματα, itself no inherent congruity, but the gift and apportionment of God. It is in fact the subjective designation of ἢ χάρις ἣ δοθεῖσα ἡμῖν, ver. 6. But we must not say, that (Ewb.) ‘faith, in this passage, means those gifts or graces which the Christian can only receive through faith: this is to confound the receptive faculty with the thing received by it, and to pass by the great lesson of our verse, that this faculty is nothing to be proud of, but God’s gift. 4.| γάρ, elucidating the fact, that God apportions variously to various persons: because the Christian community is like a body with many mem- bers having various duties. See the same idea further worked out, 1 Cor. xii. 12 ff. 5. τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς] But (severally, 1. 6.7 as regards individuals. A solecism for τὸ δὲ εἷς καθ᾽ ἕνα, as ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν in ref. Rev. Wetst., on ref. Mark, gives many examples of it. Members of one an- other =- fellow-members with one another, —members of the body of which we one with another are members. 6.| The δέ = ‘and not only so, but’. . . . χάρις, see above, ver. 3, on μέτρ. πίστ. These χαρίσματα are called, 1 Cor. xii. 7, 7 φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος. “These χαρίσ- ματα δάφορα are next specified. The two first accusatives are grammatically de- pendent on ἔχοντες : by degrees the Apos- tle loses sight of the construction, and continues with the concrete 6 διδάσκων, which still he binds on to the foregoing by efre,—but at 6 μεταδιδούς, omits this also, and, at ver. 9, introduces the abstract 7 oem Thol. εἴτε προφητείαν] There is some dispute about the construc- tion of these clauses. The ordinary ren- dering regards them as elliptical, and sup- plies before κατὰ and ἐν, χρηρδέδα αὐτῇ or ὥςτε εἶναι αὐτήν or the like. But Reiche, Meyer, De Wette, suppose 20 ellipsis, joing κατὰ τὴν avar., Ke, to the foregoing substantives, as κατὰ τὴν χάριν to χαρίσματα. This construction must however be dropped at ἐν ἁπλότητι, which is manifestly to be rendered with a verb supplied: and (2) it reduces the four first mentioned gifts to a bare cata- logue, and deprives the passage of its aim, which is to keep each member of the body in its true place and work without any member boasting against 442 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. XII. \ ‘ x 2 > U A ‘ Ps 7 Vv » Υ ὃ / ες xhereonly+. ΚαΤα THV aVaANOYLAVY TNS “πίστεως ELTE taKOVLAV, ἐν (~yws, Wisd. xii. 5.) y Acts xx. 24 τῇ Y διακονίᾳ" " εἴτε ὁ διδάσκων, ἐν TH διδασκαλίᾳ" 8 Y εἴτε a A / / > 2 Tuxe itis, ὁ “παρακαλῶν, ἐν τῇ *mapakhyjoe ὁ ὃ μεταδιδούς, ἐν Acts ii. 40 al. a= Acts ix. 3]. ” a « a °amdoTnte ὁ ἃ προϊστάμενος, ἐν “σπουδῇ ὁ fédewv, ἐν 2 Cor. viii. 4. 1 Tim. iv. 13. Heb. xii.5. xiii. 22. L.P.H. beh.i. 11, Luke iii. 11. Eph. iv. 28. 1 Thess. ii. 8 only. LP. Job xxxi. 17. Wisd. vii. 13. ο 2 Cor. viii. 2. ix. 11, 13. xi. 3. Eph. vi. 5. Col. iii. 22 only. P. 1 Chron, xxix. 17. d1 Thess. v.12. 1 Tim. iii.4,5,12. v.17. Tit. iii. 8, l4only. P. Prov. xxvi. 17. e = 2 Cor. vii. 11, 12. 7. εἰτί ε (ειτ &3,] appy) ο diaxovwy N3 m [Bas,(txt,) Thdrt-ms(omg o) ]. διδασκων, διδασκαλειαν A. 8. om εἰτε D!F latt [Β85, Orig-int,] Pel. another. Tholuck quotes a passage of very similar construction from Epictet. Dissert. iii. 23.5. He is speaking of reading and philosophizing from ostentation, and says that every thing which we do, must have its aim, its ἀναφορά ;---λοιπόν, ἣ μὲν τίς ἐστι κοινὴ ἀναφορά, ἣ δ᾽ ἰδία. πρῶτον, ἵν’ ὡς ἄνθρωπος. ἐν τούτῳ τί περιέχεται ; . ἢ δ᾽ ἰδία πρὸς τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα ἑκάστου καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν' 6 κιθαρῳδός, ὡς κι- θαρῳδός" 6 τέκτων, ὡς τέκτων᾽ ὃ φιλόσοφος, ὡς φιλόσοφος" ὃ ῥήτωρ, ὧς ῥήτωρ. Seealso the same construction in 1 Pet. iv. 10,11. On προφητεία, the gift of the προφῆται, see note, Acts xi. 27. κατ. τ. ἀναλ. τ. πίστ. | (let us prophesy) according to the proportion (compare Justin Mart. Apol. i. 17, p. 54: “each will be punished πρὸς ἄναλογίαν ὧν ἔλαβε δυνάμεων παρὰ θεοῦ of faith. But what faith? Ob- jective (‘fides gue creditur’), or subjective (‘fides gua creditur’)? the faith, or our faith ? The comparison of μέτρον πιστεως above, and the whole context, determine it to be the latter; the measure of ovr faith: ‘quisque se intra sortis sue metas con- tineat, et revelationis sue modum teneat, ne unus sibi omnia scire videatur.’ To understand ἀναλογία τ. π. objectively, as ‘the rule of faith, as many R.-Cath. ex- positors, and some Protestant, e. g. Calvin, ‘fidei nomine significat prima religionis axiomata,—seems to do violence to the context, which aims at shewing that the measure of faith, itself the gift of God, is the receptive faculty for all spiritual gifts, which are therefore not to be boasted of, nor pushed beyond their provinces, but humbly exercised within their own limits. 7. διακονίαν] any subordinate ministration in the Church. In Acts vi. 1 and 4, we have the word applied both to the lower ministration, that of alms and food, and to the higher, the διακ. τοῦ λόγου, which belonged to the Apostles. But here it seems to be used in a more restricted sense, from its position as distinct from prophecy, teaching, exhortation, &c. ἐν τῇ Stax.) Let us confine ourselves humbly and orderly to that kind of minis- tration to which God’s providence has ap- 2 Pet.i.5. Jude3. Exod. xii. 11. f ch. xi. 31 reff. for o προιστανομενος ὃξ. pointed us, as profitable members of the body. 6 διδάσκων] The prophet spoke under immediate inspiration; the διδάσκαλος under inspiration working by the secondary instruments of his will and reason and rhetorical powers. Paul him- self seems ordinarily, in his personal minis- trations, to have used διδασκαλία, He is nowhere called a prophet, but appears as distinguished from them in several places : e.g. Acts xi. 27; xxi. 10, and apparently xiii. 1. Of course this does not affect the appearance of pruphecies, commonly so called, in his writings. The inspired διδά- σκαλος would speak, though not technically προφητείας, yet the mind of the Spirit in all things: not to mention that the apos- tolic office was one in dignity and fulness of inspiration far surpassing any of the subor- dinate ones, and in fact including them all. ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ as before: he is to teach in the sphere, within the bounds, of the teaching allotted to him by God,—or for which God has given him the faculty. 8.1 The παρακαλῶν was not neces- sarily distinct from the προφητεύων, τττϑθ6 1 Cor. xiv. 31. ὃ μεταδιδούς appears to be the giver of the alms to the poor,— either the deacon himself, or some dis- tributor subordinate to the deacon. This however has been doubted, and not with- out reason : fora transition certainly seems to be made, by the omission of the εἴτε, from public to private gifts. We eannot find any ecclesiastical meaning for ἐλεῶν (though indeed Calvin, al., understand by it “viduas et alios ministros qui curandis zgrotis, secundum veterem Ecclesize mo- rem, preeficiebantur ”),—and the very fact of the three preceding being all limited to their respective official spheres, whereas these three are connected with qualitative descriptions, speaks strongly for their being private acts, to be always performed in the spirit described. Add to all, that, as Vitringa remarks, διαδιδόναι is more properly to distribute (Acts iv. 35), pera- διδόναι to impart of one’s own to another. I would therefore render it: He that be- stoweth. ἐν ἁπλότητι] ordinarily, ‘with simplicity.’ But seeing that ἅπλά- ABDF L[P]s abcdf ghkl mnol?7 [47] 1--11. 8 ἱλαρότητι. πονηρόν, " κολλώμενοι | TH! ἀγαθῷ" 10 τῇ ™ φιλαδελφίᾳ εἰς ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. 448 ἘΠ. > 4 ῇ 5 a x 9 ἡ ἀγάπη © ἀνυπόκριτος. ‘ ἀποστυγοῦντες TO Ε here only. Prov. xviii. 22 only. (-ρός, 2 Cor. ἀλλήλους " φιλόστοργοι' τῇ 5 τιμῇ ἀλλήλους P TpoNyoU- n2 Cor νἱ. 5. 1 Tim. i. 5. lal a \ » / an / / EVOL’ 11 Tn © Ὁ ὃ 4 OK .ἴ IS 8 Σ. ἌΝ δ: μ b 7) σπου Hf] μὴ O VN POL TO πνευματιυ ζέον Ἔτι δὰ ἀν 12: ; “; ᾿ 1 Pet. i. 22 only+. Wisd. v. 18. xviii. 16 only. constr., Heb. xiii. 5. i here only +. k = Luke xv. 15. Acts vill. 29. 2 Kings xx. 2. 1 ch, ii. 10 reff. m 1 Thess. iv. 9. Heb. xiii. 1. 1 Pet.i.22. 2 Pet.i.7 (bis) only+. (-os, 1 Pet. iii. 8.) n here only +. (-yws, 2 Macc. ix. 21. -γία, 2 Mace. vi. 20.) xlviii. 12, 20. p here only, iii. 1) only. Proy. vi. 6, 9, 9. for αποστυγ.; μεισουντες Ε', Ts, referred to alms-giving, bears another and an objective meaning, this hardly satisfies me, because σπουδή and ἱλαρότης designate not so much the inward frame of mind, as the outward character of the superintendence and the compassion: as might be expected, when gifts to be exer- cised for mutual benefit are spoken of. In 2 Cor. vill. 2; ix. 11, 13, Jos. Antt. vii. 13. 4. (where David admires Araunah, τῆς ἁπλότητος Kal τῆς μεγαλοψυχία5), the word signifies ‘ liberality : so perhaps ἁπλῶς also, James i. 5, but see note there. This meaning is not recognized by Wahl, Lex., but defended by Tholuck, who connects it with the phrase found in Stobzeus, Eclog. Phys. i. p. 123, ἁπλοῦν τὰς χεῖρας, ‘to open the hands wide :’-—and I would thus render it here. ὃ προϊστάμενος] He that presides—but over what? If over the Church exclusively, we come back to offices again: and it is hardly likely that the rulers of the Church, as such, would be introduced so low down in the list, or by so very general a term, as this. In 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12, we have the verb used of pre- siding over a man’s own household : and in its absolute usage here, I do not see why that also should not be included. Meyer would understand it of ‘patronage of strangers’ (ch. xvi. 2). Stuart in his Ex- cursus on this place, appended to his Com- mentary, takes up and defends the same view. But, not insisting on the general usage of the word being preferable where it occurs absolutely, will ἐν σπουδῇ apply to this meaning? Of course so far as σπουδή is applicable to every employment, it might, but more than this is required, where words are connected in so marked a manner as here. Giving προϊστάμενος the ordinary meaning, these words fit admirably: imply- ing that he who is by God set over others, be they members of the Church or of his own household, must not allow himself to forget his responsibility, and take his duty indolently and easily, but must προΐστασθαι σπουδαίως, making it a serious matter of continual diligence. ὁ ἐλεῶν] See above: He that sheweth mercy, is the very best rendering: and I cannot conceive Prov. xvii. 14 al. r = Acts xvii. 16 reff. o = John iv. 44. Acts xxviii. 10. ch. 11. 7 al. Ps- 2 Mace. iy. 40. q = Matt. xxv. 26 (Phil. s Acts xviii. 25 (reff.) only. that any officer of the Church is intended, but every private Christian who exercises compassion. It is in exhibiting compas- sion, which is often the compulsory work of one obeying his conscience rather than the spontaneous effusion of love, that cheer- Sulness is so peculiarly required, and so frequently wanting. And yet in such an act it is even of more consequence towards the effect,—consoling the compassionated, than the act itself. κρείσσων λόγος ἢ δόσις, Sir. xviii. 16. 9—21.]| Ex- hortations to various Christian principles and habits. 9.1 Olsh., De Wette, al., would understand éotiv,—not ἔστω, —the ellipsis of the imperative being un- usual. But I cannot see how this can be here. Clearly the three preceding clauses are hortative; as clearly, those which fol- low are so likewise. Why then depart from the prevalent character of the context, and make this descriptive ? ἀποστυγ.] This very general exhortation is probably, as Bengel says, an explanation of ἀνυπό- Kpitos:—our love should arise from a genuine cleaving to that which is good, and aversion from evil: not from any by-ends. 10.] in brotherly love (dat. of the respect or regard in which), affec- tionate. φιλόστ.] properly of love of near relations ; agreeing therefore ex- actly with φιλαδελφία. a pon you- μενοι] “invicem preevenientes,” latt. μὴ μένε φιλεῖσθαι παρ᾽ ἑτέρου, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐπιπήδα τούτῳ καὶ κατάρχου, Chrys.: similarly Syr., Theophyl., Erasm., Luther : —or, = ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν, Phil. ii. 8; so Origen, Theodoret, Grot.: or, as in ref. 2 Mace. ‘ setting an example to,’ ‘going before, which however does not seem to apply here, unless we render τῇ τιμῇ, ‘in yielding honour :? ‘in giving honour, anticipat- ing one another’ (so Stuart). 11.] in zeal (not ‘business, as E. V. which seems to refer it to the affairs of this life, whereas it relates, as all these in vv. 11, 12, 13, to. Christian duties as such: as ‘fer- vency of spirit,’ ‘acting as God’s servants,” ‘rejoicing in hope,’ ἄς.) not slothful. ζέων τῷ mv. is used of Apollos, in ref. The 444. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOYS. XIE “- , ~ / a t—Actsxx. Tes’ τῷ κυρίῳ * δουλεύοντες. 19 τῇ ἐλπίδι χαίροντες" TH 19 reff. see θ nlp oe , r ie ans es «ποῖος xan, σλίψρεν “ ὑπομένοντες τῇ Y προςευχῇ “ προςκαρτεροῦντες iv. 13 |}. a , Le REG rh a . ‘ 2timii. 19 ταῖς * χρείαις τῶν *ayiwv Y κοινωνοῦντες" τὴν * φιλο- James y. il. ͵ Bs , 14 be 2? a 4 d , eth ins iPet.ii20. ξενίαν ὃ διώκοντες. εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς ἃ διώκοντας ὑμᾶς" Job xiv. 14. y fi Ἶ Ν 5 ᾿ ‘ vice °° εὐλογεῖτε, Kal μὴ Katapacbe. 15 χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόν- w Acts xx. 34 , \ / or fs 5) > Ἢ ee yg Τῶν, κλαιεῖν μετὰ KNALOVTOV. To ‘auto εἰς ἀλλήλους Acts ff. s y th. xv. 27. Gal. vi.6. Phil. iv.15. 1 Tim. v.22. Heb. ii. 14. 1 Pet. iv. 13. 2John ll only. Wisd. vi. 25. Polyb. ii. 32.8 al. 2 Heb. xiii. 2 only +. (-vos, 1 Pet. iv. 9.) a=ch. ix. 30, 31 reff. b= 1 Cor. iv. 12. 1 Pet. iii. 9 al. e LUKE vi. 28. James iii. 9. Gen. xii. ὃ. d = Matt. νυ. 44. Acts vii. 52 reff. iii. 10.) 2 Kings xxi. 5. eas above (c). Matt. xxv.41. Mark xi. 2l only. Gen. v.29. (-pa, Gal. f ch. xv. 5. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. ii. 2. iv. 2. 11. Steph (for kvpiw) ka:pw, with D' F[-gr] 5 G-lat lat-mss-mentd-by-[ Orig-int ]-Jer Cypr Ambrstexpr: txt ABD? 51 ΡΊΝ rel gr-mss-mentd-by-[Orig-int ]-Jer-Ambrst [vule F-lat syrr copt goth «th arm] Clem, Ath, Bas, Chr, Thdrt Euthal[(Wetst: not in Zacagn. Euthal-ms om τ. «. δ.) Antch, Damasc] ΤῊ] Ce [Orig-int,] Jer Pel Aug Primas Sedul Bede. ὑπομενονντες τὲ [-wevos ΑἸ]. 18. for χρείαις, μνειαις DIF mss-mentd-by-Thdor-mops(éa τῶν ἀντιγράφων) am Hil, Ambrst Aug,: txt ABD°(LP 8 rel [vulg-clem(with fuld demid harl tol) syrr(and syr-mg-gr) copt goth eth arm] Clem, Chr, Thdrt Thdor-mops, Damase ΤῺ] @e Aug, Bede: [Orig-int, ] Sedul Pel speak of both readings. 14. om vuas (homeotel 7) B 47. 672 am Clem: tous ex@pouvs nuwy Orig, : om eva. τ. diwk. vu. (passing from 1st evdoyerte to 2nd) F [spec Orig-int ]-ms: these words are aft καταρασθε in D'3[and lat]: txt ΑἸ [ΞΡ δὲ rel [vulg & Clem] Chr Bas Thdrt. [evroyeroBar (2nd) D}(appy). | 15. ree ins. καὶ bef κλαίειν, with AD8L[P 47(sic)] rel Syr copt [eth] (Orig,) Chr, Thdrt [Damase Tert, Ambr,]: om BD!FX latt syr goth arm [Orig-int, |] Ambrst Pel Aug, Sedul Bede. Holy Spirit lights this fire within: see Luke xii. 49; Matt. 111. 11. τ. κυρίῳ Sova. | The external authorities, as will be seen in the var. read., are strongly in favour of this reading. The balance of internal probability, though not easy at once to settle, is 1 am persuaded on the same side. The main objection to κυρίῳ has ever been, that thus the Apostle would be inserting here, among particular precepts, one of the most general and comprehensive character. So Hilary (in Wetst.) and al. But this will be removed, if we remember, of what he is speaking: and if I mistake not, the other reading has been defended partly owing to forgetfulness of this. The present sub- ject is, the character of our zeal for God. In it we are not to be ὀκνηροί, but fervent in spirit,—and that, as servants of God. A very similar reminiscence of this relation to God occurs Col. iii. 22—24: of δοῦλοι, . . . ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας. τῷ κυρίῳ χριστῷ δου- λεύετε. ‘The command, τῷ καιρῷ δουλεύειν, would surely come in very inopportunely in the midst of exhortations to tiie zealous service of God. At the same time, it is not easy to give an account of the origin of the reading. The ἐξαγοραζόμενο: τὸν και- pov of Epb. v. 16 may have led to the filling up of the contracted κυρίῳ (Kw) with ibis word: and the notion that σπουδῇ referred to worldly business, may have fa- voured the sense thus given. For examples of the phrase τῷ καιρῷ δουλεύειν and ‘tem- pori inservire,’ see Wetst. As to its appli- cability at all to Christians, De Wette well remarks, “ The Christian may and should certainly employ (Eph. v. 16) τὸν καιρόν (time and opportunity), but not serve it.” Athauas, (in Wetst.) ad Dracont. says, οὐ πρέπει TH καιρῷ δουλεύειν, ἀλλὰ κυρίῳ. 12.) The datives here are not parallel. τῇ eArtdsis the ground of the joy in χαίρον- Tes,—but τῇ θλίψει the state in which the ὑπομονή is found. 13.] The reading μνείαις 15. curious, as being a corruption introduced, hardly accidentally, in favour of the honour of martyrs by commemoration. τ. φιλοξ διώκ.! οὐκ εἶπεν Epya- Copevor, ἀλλὰ διώκοντες, παιδεύων ἡμᾶς μὴ ἀναμένειν τοὺς δεομένους, πότε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἔλθωσιν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐπιτρέχειν «. καταδιώκειν. Chrys. Hom. xxi, p. 676. 14.} “The Sermon on the Mount must have been particularly well known ; for among the few references in the N. T. Epistles to the direct words of Christ there occur several to it: e.g. 1 Cor. vii. 10. James iv. 9; v. 12 (we may add iv. 3; i. 2, 22; ii. 5, 18; v. 2, 3, 10)..-1 Pet. iii. 9, 14; iv. 14. Tholuck. 15. | Inf. for imperative: see Phil. iii. 16: and Winer, edn. 6, § 43. 5. d. 16.] Having (the participial construction is resumed, as in ver. 9) the same spirit towards ons i ᾿ῳ.... 12—20. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 445 lal « μ Ν hi δ \ Η ἴω 3 \ lal “= φρονοῦντες" μὴ τὰ “ὑψηλὰ © φρονοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τοῖς « -- eh. το A \ / f . = ἱ συναπαγόμενοι. μὴ γίνεσθε ™ φρόνιμοι παρ᾽ " apni tee \ \ 5 \ A 3 , ii 17 μηδενὶ 5 κακὸν ὃ avTlL κακοῦ "Ὁ ἀποδιδόντες". ἀν ὅς oy. x > k = Lukei. 52. 2 Cor. (vii. 6 reff.) x. 1. James i. 9. Isa. xi. 4. 1 Gal. ii. 13. 2 Pet. iii. 17 only. Exod. xiv. 6 only. m Ww. παρά, here only (see ch, xi. 25 το). Prov. ΟἹ Thess. v.15. 1 Pet. 111. 9. (Prov. xvii. 13.) q 2 Cor. viii. 21, 1Tim.y.8 only. Prov. iii. 4. (-vova, TATFELVOLS " ἑαυτοῖς. q ΄ λὰ r2 ΄ ΄ > 6 / Ξ 18 ς προνοούμενοι καλὰ " ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων 5 εἰ \ ς lal \ / » / δυνατόν, ‘to ἐξ ὑμῶν μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἃ εἰρηνεύον- \ lal , tes’ 19 μὴ " ἑαυτοὺς " ἐκδικοῦντες, ἡ ἀγαπητοί, ἀλλὰ * δότε Χ le a 5 a, / \ y Ἢ \ za2 / π᾿ τύπον τῇ ὀργῇ γέγραπται γὰρ μοὶ 2 ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ / ΄ ζ A 2> ἀνταποδώσω, λέγει κύριος. 59 ἀλλὰ ἐὰν “ πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός 111. 7. n 2nd pers., 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff. p = Matt. vi. 4,6. Luke x. 36 al. ch. xiii. 14.) ,t = Acts iv. 19 reff. Mal. ii. 17. 5 Matt. xxiv. 24. Gal. iv. 15, ὁ = here only. Hom. Il. a. 525, ἐξ ἐμέθεν. see ch. i, 15. u Mark ix. 50. 2 Cor. xiii.11. 1 Thess. v.l3only. 3 Kings xxii. 43. Sir. vi. 6. v Luke xviii. 3,5. 2 Cor. x.6. Rey. vi. 10. xix. 2 only. 4 Kingsix.7. (-«os, ch. xiii. 4.) w 2 Cor. vii. 1 reff. x Luke xiv.9. Eph.iv.27. Sir. iv. 5. xxxviii. 12. see Heb. xii. 17. y DevT. xxxii. 35. z Heb. x. 30. (JER. xxviii. [1.1 6.) a as above (2). Luke xviii. 7,8. xxi. 22. Acts vii. 24. 2. Cor. vii. 11. 2 Thess.i.8. 1 Pet. ii. l4donly. Judg. xi. 36. Ὁ ch. xi. 35 reff. c Matt. iy.2.v.6al. Prov. xxy. 21, 22. [16. for μη τα vb. ppov., ayarnra P}. συναπαγαάμενοι B},] 17. aft cada ins ἐνώπιον Tov θεου καὶ (see 2 Cor viii. 21; Prov iii. 4) A? (Polyc,) ; ov μονον ενωπ. τ. 8. aAAa και F vulg goth arm[-use spec Ambrst] Lucif,: om Al(appy) BDL[P]X& rel Syr [5.7 copt eth arm-zoh Chr, Thdrt Damase Orig-int, ]. for παντων, των ΑΞ D}/and lat] F guelph harl tol [spec] Lucif, : txt (A'?)BD3L[P]® τοὶ [ vulg-clem(with am fuld demid) syrr copt goth arm Bas,] Chr, (Thdrt) Damase ΤῊ] (Ec Ambrst Sedul Bede. 19. [εκδικησεις A F-gr Orig, (txt,-int,). | ανταποδω F, 20. rec (for αλλα eav) εαν ovy, with D3-gr L rel Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] Ce: eay (alone) D!-gr F guelph D3-lat [spec] goth: εαν yap Syr Did, : [οὐδὲ syr, etsi quoque wth: ] txt AB[P]X m vulg D!-lat [copt arm] Bas, Damasc [ Orig-int,. another, 1.e. actuated by a common and well-understood feeling of mutual allow- ance and kindness. μὴ τὰ ὑψ.] It is a question, whether τοῖς ταπεινοῖς is neuter or masc. Certainly not necessarily neuter, as De W.: the Apostile’s antitheses do not require such minute correspondence as tunis. The sense then must decide. In τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες, the ὑψηλά are necessarily subjective, the lofty thoughts of the man. But in tots ταπεινοῖς συν- απαγόμενοι the adj. is necessarily objec- tive; some outward objects with which the persons exhorted are συναπάγεσθαι. And those outward objects are defined, if I mistake not, by the τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες. This spirit towards one an- other is not to be a spirit of haughtiness, but one of community and sympathy, con- descending to men of low estate, as E. V. admirably rendersit. For ovvar.., see reff. and compare Zosimus, Hist. v. 6, cited by Tholuck, καὶ αὐτὴ ἢ Σπάρτη συναπήγετο τῇ κοινῇ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἁλώσει. The in- sertion of the seemingly incongruous μὴ γίνεσθε. . ἑαυτοῖς is sufficiently accounted for by reference to ch. xi. 25, where he had stated this frame of mind as one to be avoided by those whose very place in God’s church was owing to His free mercy. Being uplifted one against another would be a sign of this fault being present and opera- tive. 11.) The construction is resumed. The Apostle now proceeds to exhort respect- ing conduct to those without. mpovoovp. καλὰ... .7 from ref. Prov., which has ἐνώπιον κυρίου καὶ ἀνθρώπων. 18.] The εἰ δυνατόν, as well remarked by Thol. and De Wette, is objective only— not ‘if you can,’ but if it be possible—if others will allow it. And this is further defined by τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν : all YouR part is to be peace: whether you actually live peace- ably or not, will depend then solely on how others behave towards you. 19.1 So Matt. v. 39, 40. ἀγαπητοί) ‘The more difficult this duty, the more affection- ately does the Apostle address his readers, with this word.’ Thol. δότε τόπον] allow space, i.e. ‘interpose delay,’ to anger. So Livy viii. 32, “Legati cireum- stantes sellam orabant, ut rem in posterum diem differret, et ire sue spatium, et con- silio tempus, daret.” So that we must not understand τῇ ὀργῇ, ‘your anger,’ nor [ exactly, though it comes to that, | “ God’s anger,’ but ‘anger,’ generally ;—‘ give wrath room: ‘proceed not to execute it hastily, but leave it for its legitimate time, when He whose it is to avenge, will execute it: make not the wrath your own, but leave it for God.’ So in the main, but mostly understanding [exclusively] τ. dp. τοῦ θεοῦ, Chrys., Aug., Theodoret, and the great body of Commentators. Some Fathers interpret it, ‘yield to the anger. 446 d 1 Cor. xiii. 3 only. Num, xi. 4, 18 al, e Matt. xxv. 35, 37, 42. Job xxii. 7. f Matt. x. 42. 1 Cor. iii. 2, ἄς. xii. 13. Rev. xiv. 8. Judg. iv. 19. g here only.1l.c. Ps. xvii. 8, 12. (-κία, John xviii. 18.) h2 Tim. iii. 6 only. l.c. Judith. xv. 11 only. ii. 43 reff. αὐτοῦ. ‘CR Te ον i ἀγαθῷ ἱ ro} κακόν. ich. ii. 9, 10 (reff.). xiii. 48. xv. q Acts xviii. 6 reff. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 5» lA Ὁ σου, “youve αὐτόν" ἐὰν " διψᾷ, “ πότιζε αὐτόν. \ a 8 v a \ h / ΟΕ \ \ yap ποιῶν ὃ ἄνθρακας πυρὸς ἢ σωρεύσεις ἐπὶ THY κεφαλὴν \ a : A 3: A . a “1 μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ ' τοῦ ! κακοῦ, ἀλλὰ νίκα * ἐν ἱ τῷ m=1Cor. xv. 24. Eph. iii. 10. vi. 12, Tit. ili. 1. ii. 3. iii. 8. iv. 7) only. Gen. xli. 40. (-ox7, 1 Cor. ii. 1.) XII. 21. “Ὁ TOUTO XIII. 1 Πᾶσα ἱψυχὴ ™ ἐξουσίαις " ὑπερεχούσαις ° ὗπο- ’ θ » [ 5 m 5" / ’ \ Ἐν > εν θ lal e τασσέσθω. ov yap ἐστιν ™ ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ * ἀπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ Ῥ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν. 2 ὥςτε ὁ VavTI- 1 Acts n— 1 Pet. ii. 13 (Phil. p Luke vii. 8. Acts k = Matt. xii. 27,28. Mark xiv. 1 al. o ch, viii. 7 reff. ins καὶ bef eav διψα D}(and lat, Tischdf; D3, Treg): eav δε Supa D?*3(Tischdf) goth arm |. τῆς Kepadns B. 21. μη vixov A. for vio, aro F. Cuap. XIII. 1. for πασα ψυχη . [fuld spec] Iren-int, Ambrst. απο D1F Orig, Thdrt Damase. . υποτασσεσθω, Tagas .. . ὑυποτασσεσθε DF harl * ὑχτὸ ABD3L[P]N rel Bas, Isid, Chr, Thdrt-ms: rec aft ovoa ins εξουσιαι, with D3L{ P] rel syrr [Orig,] Chr, Thdrt Thl @c: om ABD'FR latt copt goth eth arm Iren-int, Ind- int,[appy | Ambrst Aug. [for ὑπο, απο F. | rec ins tov bef θεου, with L?* rel Orig, Thdrt Chr-ms, : om ADF[P]X! 1m Chr Damasc. (of your adversary); but this meaning for δότε τόπον is hardly borne out. The citation varies from the LXX, which has ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω ;—and is nearer the Heb.,—n>w) 072 Ὁ, “ mine is re- venge and requital.” It is very remark- able, that in Heb. x. 30 the citation is made in the same words. 20.] The οὖν would mean ‘quod cum ita sit ;’— carrying on the sentence with the as- sumption of the last thing stated. This perhaps may not have been understood, and hence may have arisen the alteration or omission of οὖν inthe Mss. But the evidence is very strong for its omission. What is meant by ἄνθρακας πυρὸς owpevoets? The expression ἄνθρ. πυρ. occurs more than once in Ps. xviii., of the divine punitive judgments. Can those be meant here? Clearly not, in their bare literal sense. For however true it may be, that ingratitude will add to the enemy’s list of crimes, and so subject him more to God’s punitive judgment, it is impossible that to bring this about should be set as a precept, or a desirable thing among Christians. Again, can the expres- sion be meant of the glow and burn of shame which would accompany, even in the case of a profane person, the receiving of benefits from an enemy? ‘This may be meant; but is not probable, as not sufficing for the majesty of the subject. Merely to make an enemy ashamed of himself, can hardly be upheld as a motive for action. I understand the words, ‘ For in this doing, you will be taking the most effectual ven- geance ;’ as effectual as if you heaped coals of fire on his head. 21.] If you suf- fered yourselves to be provoked to revenge, you would be yielding to the enemy,— overcome by that which is evil: do not thus,—but in this, and in all things, over- come the evil (in others) by your good. CuaP. XIII. 1—7.] The duty of cheer- ful obedience to the powers of the state. It has been well observed (Calv., Thol., De Wette. See Neander, Pflanzung u. Leitung, ἄς. 4th ed. p. 460 ff.) that some special veason must have given occasion to these exhortations. We can hardly attribute it to the seditious spirit of the Jews at Rome, as their influence in the Christian Church there would not be great; indeed, from Acts xxviii. the two seem to have been remarkably distinct. But disobedience to the civil authorities may have arisen from mistaken views among the Christians them- selves as to the nature of Christ’s kingdom and its relation to existing powers of this world. And such mistakes would naturally be rifest there, where the fountain of earthly power was situated: and there also best and most effectually met by these precepts coming from apostolic authority. The way for them is prepared by vv. 17 ff. of the foregoing chapter. 1 Pet. ii. 18 ff. is parallel : compare notes there. 1. ὑποτασσέσθω, see 1 Cor. xvi. 16, is reflective, subject himself, i. e. ‘ be subject of his own free will and accord.’ For there is no authority (in heaven or earth —no power at all) except from God: and (so δέ, 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16. It introduces a second clause as if μέν had stood in the first) those that are (the existing powers which we see about us), have been ordained by God. We may observe that the Apostle here pays no regard to the question of the duty of Christians in revolutionary move- ABDF L[P]x abcd f ghkl mnol7z [47] XIII. 1—6. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 4 > / A a a a τασσόμενος τῇ " ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ * διαταγῆ * ἀνθ- ΄ e ἈΝ > , lal lal ἐστηκεν" οἱ δὲ " ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς * κρῖμα λήμψονται. 447 r Acts vii. 53 only. Ezra iv. 11 only. see Gal. ili. ς \ ” ? AN / fal > a 5) 19. 3 οἱ yap ἃ ἄρχοντες οὐκ εἰσὶν " φόβος τῷ W ἀγαθῷ * ἔργῳ, 5 Acts vi. 10 > \ A / \ A ͵ ren. | ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ. θέλεις δὲ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τὴν ™ ἐξουσίαν ; t= chit? ‘ > \ , \ ov ” oon fal ee Me τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει, καὶ * ἕξεις 5) ἔπαινον ἐξ αὐτῆς. 4 θεοῦ “is xe '3s* \ / / \ ͵ al. fr. yap διάκονός ἐστιν σοὶ ὅ εἰς * τὸ “ayabov. ἐὰν δὲ ὃ τὸ v=here only. en. ΧΥΧΙ, \ a a, > \ b WT a) \ / al ᾿ Ὁ κακὸν ποιῇς, φοβοῦ" οὐ γὰρ " εἰκῆ τὴν ἃ μάχαιραν © φορεῖ £3 3! a 4 / , ’ 7 > > \ A \ w sing., ch. il. θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν, ἶ ἔκδικος 8 εἰς 8 ὀργὴν τῷ ὃ TO” κα- “τ ive. \ ἢ \ Seonl e ͵ ἢ τις -- κὸν πράσσοντι. ὅ διὸ " ἀνάγκη ° ὑποτάσσεσθαι οὐ μόνον διὰ τοῦ. ιν. \ b) / ᾽ \ % 5 \ \ : / \ a y ch. ii. 29 reff. τὴν ὀργήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ 'dia τὴν Ἶ συνείδησιν. ὃ. διὰ τοῦτο zen viii. 28. ἡ, 2. XVI 19 orly. 5661 Cor. xi. 17. ἃ ch. ii. 10 reff. b ch. ii. 9 reff. τ c (Matt. v. 22.; 1Cor. xv.2. Gal. iii. 4 (bis). iv. 11. Col. 11. 18 only. Prov. xxviii. 25 only. d Acts xii. 2 reff. e Matt. xi. 8. John xix.5. 1 Cor. xv.49 (bis). James 11. 3 only. Prov. xvi. 23, 27. Sir. xi. 5. xl. 4 only. f1 Thess. iv.6 only +. Wisd. xii. 12. Sir. xxx.6only. (-κεῖν, -KN OLS, ch. xii. 19.) 51 Thess. v. 9. h = Heb. ix. 16, 23. i1 Cor. x. 25,27, 1 Pet. ii. 19. k 2 Cor. i. 12 reff. 3. rec τῶν ayabwv epywv a. των κακων, with D3[-gr] L rel syrr [arm] Chr, Thdrt [Ambrst-ed]: txt ABD! F[P]& latt copt goth (Clem,) Damase [(Orig-int,)] Iren-int, Cypr (Tert,) Aug Pacian Sedul Bede. 4. om σοι F b' ο 116. om Ist το B. εκδικος D3(and lat?) 8! be fk no 17 Chr, Thdrt. om eis opynv DIF: es opynv bef 5. om αναγκὴ (making υποτασσεσθαι = -σθε) DF [guelph spec] goth Iren-int, Sedul,. om και F (but F-lat has ef). ments. His precepts regard an established power, be it what it may. J¢, in all matters lawful, we are bound to obey. But even - the parental power does not extend to things unlawful. If the civil power com- mands us to violate the law of God, we must obey God before man. If it com- mands us to disobey the common laws of humanity, or the sacred institutions of our country, our obedience is due to the higher and more general law, rather than to the lower and particular. These distinctions must be drawn by the wisdom granted to Christians in the varying cir- cumstances of human affairs: they are all only subordinate portions of the great duty of obedience to Law. To obtain, by lawful means, the removal or alteration of an unjust or unreasonable law, is another part of this duty : for all authorities among men must be in accord with the highest authority, the moral sense. But even where law is hard and unreasonable, not disobedience, but legitimate protest, is the duty of the Christian. 2.| ἄντιτασσ., see above on brotacc. ἑαυτοῖς κρῖμα A.] shall receive for themselves (the dat. incommodi) condemnation, viz. punish- ment from God, through His minister, the civil power. 3.] And the tendency of these powers is salutary: to encourage good works, and discourage evil. It is not necessary to set a note of interrogation after ἐξουσίαν : the clause may be treated as hypothetical,—see 1 Cor. vii. 18. Tho- luck observes, that this verse is a token that the Apostle wrote the Epistle before the commencement of the Neronian per- secution. Had this been otherwise, the principle stated by him would have been the same; but he could hardly have passed so apparent an exception to it without remark. 4.] τὴν μάχαιραν, perhaps in allusion to the dagger worn by the Cesars, which was regarded as a symbol of the power of life and death : so Tacitus, Hist. iii. 68, of Vitellius, “adsistenti Consuli exsolutum a latere pugionem, velut jus necis viteeque civium, reddebat.”? Dio Cassius also, xlii. 27, men- tions the wearing of τὸ ξίφος on all occa- sions by Antony, as a sign that he τὴν μοναρχίαν ἐνεδείκνυτο. In ancient and modern times, the sword has been carried before sovereigns. It betokens the power of capital punishment: and the reference to it here is among the many testimonies borne by Scripture against the attempt to abolish the infliction of the penalty of death for crime in Christian states. εἰς ὀργήν seems to be inserted for the sake of paral- lelism with eis ἀγαθόν above: it betokens the character of the éxdixnois,—that it issues in wrath. The ὀργή is referred to in τὴν ὀργήν, ver. 5. 5.] διό, because of the divine appointment, and mission of the civil officer. avaykn—ye must needs submit yourselves—there is a moral necessity for subjection :—one not only of terror, but of conscience : compare διὰ τὸν κύριον, 1 Pet. ii. 13. 6.| διὰ τοῦτο .. καί is parallel with διό, ver. 5,—giving another result of the divine appointment of the civil power ;—not dependent on 448 ΠΡΟΣ ῬΩΜΑΊΟΥΣ. ΧΙ. ‘ ‘ l ͵ m . . Π \ ‘ nm " > Lhere dee. ον yap Kat‘ φορους τελεῖτε" " λειτουργοὶ yap θεοῦ εἰσιν εἰς ia suke XX. 22. \ Qn an ͵ ral xxii. 2 only. ὁ αὐτὸ ° τοῦτο P προςκαρτεροῦντες. ἴ 4 ἀπόδοτε πᾶσιν τὰς adcdt be g. 1.2 alas , A Ν , \ A \ ghkl my Unt T Obevtas, τῷ " τὸν | φόρον τὸν ἱ φόρον, τῷ τὸ * τέλος TO πὶ ἢ ο17 ΤΈΣΣ al.) ἜΚ, a x \ η \ ly A ᾿ \ \ \ [47] nch.av.16. τέλος, Τῷ τὸν φόβον τὸν φόβον, τῷ τὴν τιμὴν τὴν lil. 11, £0. Heb. i. 7 if 8 } : shel ; ὸ δ ὦ / (fom Ps cin, THLNV- Mydevt μηδὲν ὀφείλετε, εἰ μὴ TO ἀλλήλους . Vili. 2 ᾽ a ς \ > a \ “ , ͵ only. Josh, GYATAV. O yap ἀγαπῶν ἃ τὸν ἕτερον νόμον ἣ πεπλήρωκεν᾽" i (A Ald.) Ύ τ Y p 56 AAC ae ee ee ee ͵ ἘΠῚ ; kings? 9 TO yap “ou μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐκ reff. Ἢ θ \ x yy x e / 5 / > lal , pActsitsren, ἐπιθυμήσεις, καὶ “ εἰ τις *ETEpa ἐντολή, EV τῷ λόγῳ qch. xii. 17 reff. p ey ce ἧς ΟΞ Ξ 9 ’ ty petra τούτῳ Y ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, [ἐν * τῷ] * ἀγαπήσεις ὃ τὸν" πλη- r Matt. xviii. 32. 1 Cor. “= / e Ψ i}, ue > U a / δ ἔμ σίον cov ὡς σεαυτὸν. 19 ἡ ἀγάπη " τῷ " πλησίον κακὸν iv. 4. s ellips., 2 Cor. viii. 16. Phil. iii, 14, Winer, edn. 6, ᾧ 64. i. 4. t=here bis. Matt. xvii. 25 only. w Exon. xx. 13, &c. z Gal. ν. 14. see ch. viii. 26 reff. al. fr. Exod. ii. 13. 7. rec aft ἀποδοτε ins ουν, with D3{and lat] FL[P]N? rel [47(sic) vulg-clem(with fuld harl) goth arm] syrr Chr, Thl Ge Ambrst: om AB D!/-gr] 8! am(with demid tol) coptt (Orig,[-int, ]) Damase Cypr,) Augsepe Cassiod,. 8. οφιλοντες δὲ ο [Orig,]: -Ante δὲδ : -Aecte B!(Tischdf). rec ayaray bef adAndous (corrn of order to agree with next clause 7), with L rel syr coptt [eth] Thi (Cc: txt ABDF[P]& τὰ latt Syr [goth] arm Orig,[-int,] Chr, Thdrt Damase Cypr,. 9. for τὸ yap, γεγραπται yap F Ambr,. [morxevons, κλεψης ἄς Ρ.] rec aft κλέψεις ins ov ψευδομαρτυρησεις (corrn to the decalogue), with { P|& rel [vulg-clem (with demid harl) syr eth arm] copt Chr, Gc {Orig-int, ]: var transp al: txt ABDFL e g117 [47] am(with fuld tol al) Syr sah [goth] Clem, Orig, [Thdrt Damase Ambr, uch. i. 1 reff. y Eph. i. 10 only 1. Ps. lxxi. 20 Theod. [and Quinta Ed. } a LEvVIT. xix. 18. bch, xv, 2. Matt. v.43. xix. 19 Num. xxxi. 28, &c. 1 Macc. x. 8]. x 1 Tim. i. 10. Augsepe Ambrst ]- F-lat Damase Orig-int, 1. Thdrt { Damasc ]. aft erepa ins εστιν [A ἰδὲ (8% disapproving) [17 vulg D-lat rec τουτω bef tw Aoyw, with AL[P] rel Clem, Dial, Cyr[-p, Chr, Thdrt Damasc]: txt BDFN ἃ τὰ Orig,. [Orig-int, Ambrst]: om ev Clem, Orig, : ν om 2nd εν τω BF latt ins ADL[P]N€ rel vss Clem, Orig, Chr rec (for oeav.) eavtov, with ΕἾ LP] rel Chr Cyr{-p,} Thi (ec: mss of Clem Dial vary: cavtoy g!: txt ABDX Ὁ ὁ ἃ ho Orig, Thdrt Damase. ver. 5. τέλεῖτε is indicative, not im- perative : the command follows ver. 7. For they (the ἄρχοντες) are ministers of God, attending upon this very duty, viz. Aectoupyetv,—hardly (as Koppe, Olsh., Meyer) φόρους τελεῖν, for in ver. 7 the Apostle has evidently in view the whole official character of these λειτουργοί. Reiche, al., construe, “ For those who wait upon this very thing are ministers of God,” which would require of εἰς αὖτ. τ. mposx. :—Koppe, ‘ For λειτουργοί are of God :’—but this again would require οἱ γὰρ Acct.—Tertullian remarks, Apolog. xlii. vol. i. p. 494, that what the Romans lost by the Christians refusing to bestow gifts on their temples, they gained by their conscientious payment of taxes. 7} Before the accusatives supply αἰτοῦντι, as the correlative of ἀπόδοτε. φόρος is tax, or tribute,—direct payment for state purposes: τέλος, custom, toll, vectigal. Φόβος, to those set over us and having power : τιμή, to those, but likewise to all on whom the state has conferred distinction. 8—10.] Exhortation to universal love of others. 8.7 ὀφείλετε is not indice. (as Koppe, Reiche, al.), which Would require οὐδενὶ oddév,—and would be inconsistent with the ὀφειλαί just men- tioned,—but imperative: ‘ Pay all other debts: be indebted in the matter of love alone.’ This debt increases the more, the more it is paid: because the practice of love makes the principle of love deeper and more active. Aug., Ep. excii. (Ixii.), ad Ceelest. vol. ii. p. 868, says : “ Redditur enim (caritas), cum impenditur, debetur autem etiam si reddita fuerit ; quia nullam est tempus quando impendenda jam non sit. Nec cum redditur amittitur, sed potius reddendo multiplicatur.” πεπλήρωκεν, hath (in the act) fulfilled: compare the perfects, John iii. 18; ch. xiv. 23. νόμον is not the Christian law, but the Mosaie law of the decalogue. “This recommendation of Love has, as also the similar one, Gal. v. 23, κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν vduos,—an apologetic reference to the upholders of the law, and depends on this evident axiom,—‘ He who practises Love, the higher duty, has, even before he does this, fulfilled the law, the lower.” De Wette. 9.1 ἀνακεφαλ., brought under one head,—‘ united in the one principle from which all flow.’ 10. ] All the commandments of the law above cited are negative: the formal fulfilment 7—12. οὐκ ° " ἐγερθῆναι: κὰ " ἀποθώμεθα οὖν τὰ 5 ἔργα τοῦ xiv. 15. and constr., Gen. xxix. 7. i= ars xxiv. 32 al. Ezek, xxx. 3. comp., here only. . 13. 1 Luke ii. 52. petal [ὃ Symm. ] (- enh Phil. i. 12.) n Acts vil. 58 reff. = Col. i 19. 1 Thess. i. 3. 10. om ἡ ay. to epya¢. A [Cyr,(appy) ]- ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. ἐργάζεται 4 πλήρωμα oe νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη. ABCD “ τοῦτο εἰδότες τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι ὥρα ἐ ἤδη ὑμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου τ τ ἘΣ νῦν γὰρ i ἐγγύτερον ἡμῶν ἡ ἐγώ he ἢ ὅτε ὁ 1 Gor, rv δ, ἐπιστεύσαμεν. 15 ἡ ees dings od ἡ δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα Ph 449 1] 6 καὶ c=ch. ii. 10 το ΧΙ. 12 ii. . Ἢ Phil. i. ἤγγικεν 28. 3John Ρ ἐνὸ Oa 2 ° σκότους, ἐν υσώμε a ‘oo πὰς h = Eph. v. “me Pee vi. 9. 1 Cor. iii. 5. xv. 2. Eph. g = ch. i. 10. = Acts xix. 2. Gal. i. 14: 2 Tim. ii. 16. fi. te 13 only. L.P.+ Ps. xliv. 5, Incert. in m = Matt. ili. 2._xxi. 34. Lam. iv. 18. o Eph. v. ll only. see John vi. 28, 29. viii. 39,41. Gal. v. p = 1 Cor. xy. 53, 54 reff. for οὐκ epy., ov katepy. D! Ὁ f 17. for ovr, δε D}[and lat | 'F spec Augsepe(txt,) : yap 115 [Ambrst]: quia Syr: om [P] 98 lect-12. 11. ἰδοντες A! F[-gr] G2[-gr]. rel goth Clem, Chr, Thdrt ΤῺ] Gc: rec nuas bef nin (corrn for euphony 7), with ΕἾ, [ndn bef wpa P: om δὴ Syr eth arm :] txt ABCDRX m vulg Damase Jer, Ambrst.—ree μας, with DFLN? rel [vulg Syr coptt goth arm Chr Thdrt Damasc]: om syr [eth Orig-int,]: txt A B(sic: d m [Clem,. 12. nyyioev A. Cypr, Ambrst]. πυημων Pk. | see table) C[P]X! for ἀποθωμ., αποβαλωμεθα D'3F [abjiciamus latt Orig-int, rec for ενδυσ. δε, kat ἐενδυσ. (corrn, no contrast seeming to Ἔ implied), with C’D?3FLN3 rel [vulg xth arm] Chr, Cyr,[txt-p,] Thdrt Cypr, of them is therefore attained, by working no ill to one’s neighbour. What greater things Love works, he does not now say : it fulfils the law, by abstaining from that which the law forbids. 11—14. | Enforcement of the foregoing, and oc- casion taken for fresh exhortations, by the consideration that THE DAY OF THE LorD IS AT HAND. 11.] καὶ τοῦτο, and this, i.e. ‘and let us do this,’ viz., live in no debt but that of love (see reff.), for other reasons, and especially for this following one. ὥρα ἤδη ἐγερθῆναι] “The Inf. Aor. here, as after verbs of willing, ordering, &c., betokens the com- pletion of the act in question. See Winer, § 45. 8 (edn. 6, § 44. 7).” De Wette. ὕπνος here = the state of worldly carelessness and indifference to sin, which allows and practises the ἔργα τοῦ σκότους. The imagery seems to be taken originally from our Lord’s discourse concerning His coming: see Matt. xxiv.42: Mark xiii. 33, and Luke xxi. 28—36, where several points of similarity to our vv. 11—14 occur. ἐγγύτ. ἥμ. ἡ σωτ. ἢ ὅτε émor. | σωτηρία, as ἀπολύτρωσις Luke xxi. 28, and ch. viii. 23, of the accomplishment of salvation. ἡμῶν [is best ] taken with ἐγγύτερον, ‘nearer to us,’ see ch. x. 8, [though] ἐγγίζει 7 ἀπολύτρωσις ὑμῶν, Luke xxi. 28, seems [at first sight ] to favour the usual connexion with σωτηρία. ἐπιστ.] we first believed;—see reff. Without denying the legitimacy of an individual application of this truth, and the impor- tance of its consideration for all Christians of all ages, a fair exegesis of this pas- sage can hardly fail to recognize the fact, that the Apostle here as well as elsewhere Von. IT. (1 Thess. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51), speaks of the coming of the Lord as rapidly ap- proaching. Prof. Stuart, Comm. p. 521, is shocked at the idea, as being inconsistent with the inspiration of his writings. How this can be, I am at a loss to imagine. “ΟΕ THAT DAY AND HOUR KNOWETH NO MAN, NO NOT THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN, NOR [EVEN] THE SON: BUT THE FATHER ONLY.” Mark xiii. 32. And to reason, as Stuart does, that because Paul corrects in 2 Thess. ii. the mistake of imagining it to be wmmediately at hand (or even actually come, see note on ἐνέστηκεν there), therefore he did not himself expect it soon, is surely quite beside the purpose. The fact, that the nearness or distance of that day was unknown to the Apostles, in no way affects the prophetic announce. ments of God’s Spirit by them, concerning its preceding and accompanying circum- stances. The ‘day and hour’ formed no part of their inspiration :—the details of the event, did. And this distinction has singularly and providentially turned out to the edification of all subsequent ages. While the prophetic declarations of the events of that time remain to instruct us, the eager expectation of the time, which they expressed in their day, has also re- mained, a token of the true frame of mind in which each succeeding age (and each succeeding age ὦ fortiori) should contem- plate the ever-approaching coming of the Lord. On the certainty of the event, our faith is grounded: by the uncertainty of the time our hope is stimulated, and our watchfulness aroused. See Prolegg. to Vol. III. ch. v. § iv. 5—10. 12.] ἢ νύξ, the lifetime of the world,—the power ᾳ α 4δ0 \ \ q ch. vi. 13 reff. δὲ Ta r = 1 Thess. ν᾿ 5,8. 2 Pet. i. 19. s 1 Thess. iv. 12. t as above (s). ΤΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. ω a , 4 ὅσγλα τοῦ φωτός. XIII. 18,14: 13 “ξ γι ἀντ ἀρ Ὁ» εἰ .2 , ως εν μερᾳ ευσχημονως \ , \ ὁ περιπατήσωμεν, μὴ "δ" κώμοις Kat “** μέθαις, μὴ *Y κοί- ταις καὶ “* ἀσελγείαις, μὴ δ) ἔριδι καὶ “°° ζήλῳ' 13 ἀλλὰ 1 Cor. xiv. Pe , Σ ‘ Ἂ a ΄ \ n Ν 40 only +. ἐνδύσασθε ees i oh Ἰησοῦν vee? και Τῆς σαρκὸς ἔν d πρόνοιαν BK” ποιεῖσθε £ εις f ἐπιθυμίας. =| id Ν \ > lal a / , ee XIV. 1 Tov δὲ ὃ ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ 8 πίστει ὃ προςλαμβά- Gal. ν. 21. Vai hey (u). 1 Pet.iv. 8 only +. Wisd. xiv. 23. 2 Macc. vi. 4 only. w dat., ch. iv. 12. x as above (ἃ). Luke xxi. 34only. Isa. xxviii.7. Hag.i.6. Judith xiii. 15. y ch. ix. 10 reff. plur., here only z Mark vii. 22. 2Cor. xii. 21. 1 Pet.iv.3al.+ Wisd. xiv.-26 only. a1 Cor. i. 11 reff. Ὁ 1 Cor. iii. 3. 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gal. v.20. Sir. xl. δ. c = Acts xiii. 45 reff. ἃ Acts xxiv. 2 only (reff.). e = ver. 4 al. h = Acts xxviii. 2 reff. { Ambrst] : Damase [ Orig-int, 1. f ch. i. 24 reff. g ch. iv. 19 (reff.). evduo. (only) δὲ [sah- ee txt ABC!D![P sah-woide] copt goth Clem, for οπλα, epya A D{and lat? ]. 13. ερισι κ. ζηλδις B [sah (Cypr,)] Ambr,. 14. (αλλα, so ABD3.) mo. B goth: om yp. ὁ Κα die comm Damase: ev επιθυμια Ambr, : Cyr-p, | Thdrt ΤῊ] Cc. of darkness, see Eph. vi. 12: 4 ἡμέρα, the day of the resurrection, 1 Thess. v. 4; Rev. xxi. 25; of which resurrection we ure already partakers and are to walk as such, Col. iti. 1—4; 1 Thess. v. 5—8. Therefore,—let us lay aside (as it were a clothing) the works of darkness (see Eph. v. 1l—14, where a similar strain of ex- hortation occurs), and put on (δέ corre- sponding to an understood μέν) the armour of light (described Eph. vi. 11 ff.—the arms belonging to a soldier of light—one who is of the viol φωτός and υἱοὶ ἡμέρας, 1 Thess. ν. 5,—not, as Grot. ‘arma splen- dentia ᾽). 13.] κοίταις, in a bad sense: the act itself being a defilement, when unsanctified by God’s ordinance of marriage. See reff. ἀσελγείαις, plural of various kinds of wantonness: so ὑπο- κρίσεις, φθόνους, καταλαλιάς, 1 Pet. ii. 1. 14.) Chrys. says, on Eph. iv. 24, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ φίλων λέγομεν, 6 δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα ἐνεδύσατο, τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην λέ- γοντες, kK. τὴν ἀδιάλειπτον συνουσίαν. See examples in Wetst. The last clause is to be read, τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ ποι- εἶσθε | εἰς ἐπιθυμίας-,---ποῦ τῆς σαρκὸς πρό- votay | μὴ ποιεῖσθε εἰς emiOvuias,—and rendered, Take not (any) forethought for the flesh, to fulfil its lusts, not ‘ Zake not your forethought for the flesh, so, as to fulfil its lusts’ (Wartet des Leibes, doch alfo, δαβ er nidjt geil werde, Luth.). This latter would be τὴν πρόνοιαν τ. σαρκ. μὴ π. εἰς ἐπιθ..,---οΥ τῆς o. mpdv. ποιεῖσθε μὴ εἰς ἐπιθ. : see construction of the next verse. Cuap. XIV. 1—XV. 18.] On THE CONDUCT T@BE PURSUED TOWARDS WEAK AND SCRUPULOUS BRETHREN. There is some doubt who the ἀσθενοῦντες τῇ πίστει were, of’ whom the Apostle here treats; whether they were ascetics. or om κυριον B [Clem,]: add nuwr sah. om καὶ D!F, ev επιθυμιαυς F latt [Orig-int,(txt,) Ambrst Aug, |: txt BDLLP]X rel Ps-Ign, Clem, ‘Chr, [ Bas, xp- bef aft σαρκ. ins nuwy sah. εις επιθυμιαν AC Ath, Thdrt-ms- Judaizers. Some habits mentioned, as e.g. the abstinence from all meats, and from wine, seem to indicate the former: whereas the observation of days, and the use of such expressions as κοινόν [ver. 14], and again the argument of ch. xv. 7—13, as plainly point to the latter. The diffi- culty may be solved by a proper combina- tion of the two views. The over-scrupulous Jew became an uscetic by compulsion. He was afraid of pollution by eating meats sacrificed or wine poured to idols: or even by being brought into contact, in foreign countries, with casual and undiscoverable uncleanness, which in his own land he knew the articles offered for food would be sure not to have incurred. He therefore abstained from all prepared food, and confined himself to that which he could trace from natural growth to his own use. We have examples of this in Daniel (Dan. i.), Tobit (Tob. i. 10, 11), [and in] some Jewish priests mentioned by Josephus, Life, § 3, who having been sent prisoners to Rome, οὐκ ἐξελάθοντο τῆς eis Td θεῖον εὐσεβείας, διετρέφοντο δὲ σύκοις καὶ Kapvots. And Tholuck refers to the Mishna as con- taining precepts to this effect. All difficulty then is removed, by supposing that of these over-scrupulous Jews some had become converts to the gospel, and with neither the obstinacy of legal Judaizers, nor the pride of ascetics (for these are not hinted at here), but in weakness of faith, and the scruples of an over-tender con- science, retained their habits of abstinence and observation of days. On this account the Apostle characterizes and treats them mildly: not with the severity which he employs towards the Colossian Judaizing ascetics and those mentioned in 1 Tim. Weick “i The question treated in ABCD FL[P]x abcdf ghkl mnol7 [17] X\VE. 1--4. νεσθε μὴ εἰς ΠΡῸΣ ῬΩΜΑΊΟΥΣ, ἱ διακρίσεις * διαλογισμῶν. 7 A 4 a ™ πιστεύει φαγεῖν Tavta,'o δὲ & ἀσθενῶν ἃ λάχανα ἐσθίει. 451 21 ὃς ep i1c xii. 10 11 Cor, xii. 10, lee Heb. ν. 14 only. Job xxxvii. 16 ς \ \ / ly. 30 ἐσθίων τὸν μὴ ἐσθίοντα μὴ ὃ ἐξουθενείτω, ὁ δὲ μὴ καὶ ta. 3 / \ 2 \ , εἶ \ \ teed ἐσθίων τὸν ἐσθίοντα μὴ ?Kpivéto’ ὁ θεὸς yap αὐτὸν 1 Cor. iii. 20 (from Ps. xciii, 11). James ii. 4 al. \ / 4 e " προςελάβετο. 3 σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ Υ κρίνων ἀλλότριον "οἰκέτην ; Heer ἐν 8. ch. ix. 21 al. ix. 3. = Μ51}. τὴν Τ᾿ ἢ. ii.) ὅτ, Col. ii. 16. James iy. 11. vii. 6. ch. xv. 20. 2 Cor. x. 15,16. Ps. cviii. 11. 18 only. Gen. ix. 25. Cuap. XIV. 2. os δε acd. F. [ Aug:epe}- 3. for εξουθεν., κρινετω A 68 lect-5 [Orig-int, ]. m = Acts xv. 1] reff. o = Luke xviii. 9. Acts iv. 11. ver. 10. Matt. xiii. Luke xi. 42 only. Gen. 1 Cor. i. 28. vi. 4 al. Prov. i. 7: q Luke xvi. 12. John x.5. Acts t Luke xvi. 18. Acts x.7. 1 Pet. ii. n Matt. xiii. 32 |). εσθιετω D'F latt[ (not D!-lat) arm] Ambrst rec (for o δὲ un) καὶ o μη, with DL[ PX? rel vulg [syrr sah eth Bas, | Epiph, Thdrt Thi (Ec [Orig-int, Aug, Ambrst] : ovde o μὴ (omg μη aft) F: txt ABCD!X? goth Clem, Damasc. 1 Cor. viii. was somewhat different: there it was, concerning meat actually offered to an idol. In 1 Cor. x. 25— 27, he touches the same question as here, and decides against the stricter view. See the whole matter discussed in Tho- luck’s Comm. in loc., De Wette’s Hand- buch, and Stuart’s Introd. to this chap. in his commentary. 1- 12.) Ee- hortation to mutual forbearances, en- forced by the axiom, that every man must serve God according to. his own sincere persuasion. 1.1 The gene- ral duty of a reconciling and uncontro- versial spirit towards the weak in faith. The δέ binds this on to the general ex. hortations to mutual charity in ch. xiii. : 4. ἃ. ‘in the particular case of the weak in faith,’ &c.: but also implies a contrast, which seems to be, in allusion to the Christian perfection enjoined in the pre- ceding verses,—‘ but do not let your own realization of your state as children of light make you intolerant of short-coming and infirmity in others.’ ἄσθ., see reff.: the particular weakness consisted in a want of broad and independent principle, and a consequent bondage to prejudices. πίστις therefore is used in a general sense, to indicate the moral soundness con- ferred by faith,—the whole character of the Christian’s conscience and practice, resting on faith. ty, better the faith, than ‘his faith: ‘weak in his (subj.) faith ? would be opposed to ‘ strong in his (subj.) faith, ‘Azs faith,’ remaining in sub- stance the same: whereas here the (subj.) faith itself is weak, and ‘weak in the faith’ = holding THE FAITH imperfectly, i.e. not being able to receive the faith in its strength, so as to be above such preju- dices. awposhapB. | ‘give him your hand,’ as Syr. (Thol.): ‘count him one of you τ᾿ opposed to rejecting or discouraging him. μὴ eis] but not with a view to : do not adopt him asa brother, in order then to begin’... διακρίσ. Sian. | GG yap bef θεὸς L 77. discernments of thoughts, lit.: i.e. dis. putes in order to settle the points on which he has scruples.’ In both the reff., διάκρισις has the meaning of ‘ discernment of,’ ‘the power of distinguishing between.’ And διαλογισμοί in the N. T. implies (ordinarily in a bad sense), ‘thoughts -᾿ what kind of thoughts, the context must determine. Here, evidently, those scruples in him, in which his weakness consists,— and those more enlightened views in you, by which you would fain remove his scru- ples. Do not let your association of him among you be with a view to settle these disputes. The above ordinary meanings of the words seem to satisfy the sense, and to agree better with εἰς than ‘ad alterca- tiones disputationum,’ as Beza, or ‘ad cer- tamina cogitationum,’ as Estius :—and are adopted by most of the ancient and modern Commentators. 2.1 The ὃς μέν, the strong in faith, so indicated by what follows, is opposed to 6 δὲ ἀσθενῶν (not to be taken ὃ δὲ, ἀσθενῶν, k.T.A.), by which τὸν ἂσθε- νοῦντα of ver. 1 is resumed. πισ- τεύει φαγεῖν, either believes that he may (ἐξεῖναι) eat,—or ventures to eat. The latter is favoured by ref. Acts, πιστεύομεν σωθῆναι, ‘we trust to be saved ;? though that also may be expanded into ‘we be- lieve that we shall be saved,’ as E, V. Ady. ἐσθ.1 See remarks introductory to this chapter. 3.] There is no need to supply πάντα after ἐσθ. and μὴ ἐσθ. I would rather take 6 ἐσθ. as the eater, and 6 μὴ ἐσθ. the abstainer. éfov9., for his weakness of faith,—xptvétw, for his laxity of practice. For God has ac- cepted (adopted into his family) him (i. 6, the eater, who was judged,—his place in God’s family doubted: not the abstainer, who was only despised, set at nought,—and to whom the words cannot, by the con- struction, apply. 4.) Who art thou (see ch. ix. 20) that judgest the servant of another (viz. as De W., of Christ,—for a κύριος in this passage is marked, vv, 8, 9, 2 XIV. ἃ σταθήσεται δέ, " du- 5 x ἃ Ν y / Os μὲν ¥ κρίνει 452 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. -“" 8 / ͵ ς 4, aA t ͵ s Paul (1 Cor. T@ l L@ κυριῳ στΉΚΕι, 7) TUTTE. xvi. 13. Gal. Ἔ κ᾿ e , A v.1. Phil. patel yap o κύριος “ στῆσαι αὐτόν. 1. Δ. ΩΣ. 1 Thess. lii. δ τυ Ζ 3 ἘΉ 4 x 4 δὲ y / A rae hy 8. 2Thes. MEPAY “Trap NMEpay, 0S ε ὕκρινει πᾶσαν NnMEpav. sew Eckl ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ νοὶ * πληροφορείσθω exc. Mar ᾿ iii. 51: Xie Ὁ. sated dat έ ω Tp " Exod. xiv. 13 A compl. 2 Cor. ix. 8. xiii. 3 only t. 21 reff. see ver. 2. ch, viii. 5 reff. t= eh. xi, 11,22.. 1 Cor. πες Τὰ: w = here only? see ch. iii. 31. y = Acts xiii. 46 reff. a =ch. iv. 21 (Col. iv. 12, 2 Tim. iv. ὃ, 17. Lukei.1) only. Eccles. viii. 11 only. (-ρία, Col. ii. 2.) e ~ 6 o © φρονῶν Proy. xi. 28. u 2 Cor. xiii. 1. Ps, exviii. 38. z=ch.i. 25. Luke xiii..2. Ps. cxxxiv. 5. b see 4. rec Suvatos yap εστιν (more usual expression), with L rel Thdrt [Damase: δυνατι yap eotw D3(appy) |: δυνατος yap, omg ἐστιν, D?[ P] syr(adding ἐστιν with ob) Bas, Chr,: txt ABCDIER. rec for kupios, Geos (corrn to suit ver 3? θεὸς there does not vary), with DFL [rel] latt syr Chr, Thdrt { Bas-ed Damase Cypr, Augalie Ambrst ]: txt ABC[P]& Syr(addg αὐτου) coptt goth arm | Bas-mss, Orsies, | Aug, Opt. 5. aft os wey ins yap ΑΟΓΡΊΝΙ latt goth [Bas, Damasc] Ambrst: om ΒΗ ΕῚ,Ν 3 rel [syrr copt eth arm Chr, Orig-int,] Dial Aug, Jerg. Thadrt. as being Christ,—and the Master is the same throughout. ὁ θεός before is uncon- nected with this verse) ? to his own Mas- ter (dat. commodi or incommodi according as στ. or mint. befalls: ‘it is his own master’s matter, and his alone, that’) he stands (‘ remains in the place and estima- tion of a Christian, from which thou would- est eject him;’ not, as Calv., Grot., Estius, Wolf, al., ‘stands hereafter in the judg- ment,’ which is not in question here: sce 1 Cor. x. 12) or falls (from his place, see above): but he shall be made to stand (notwithstanding thy doubts of the cor- rectness of his practice): for the Lord (or, his Lord, in allusion to τῷ ἰδίῳ κυρίῳ above) is able to make him stand (in faith and practice. ‘These last words are inap- plicable, if standing and falling at the great day are meant). Notice, this argu- ment is entirely directed ¢o the weak, who uncharitably judges the strong,—not vice versa. The weak imagines that the strong cannot be a true servant of God, nor retain his steadfastness amidst such temptation. ‘To this the Apostle answers, (1) that such judgment belongs only to Christ, whose servant he is: (2) that the Lord’s Almighty Power is able to keep him up, and will do so. 8.1 One man (the weak) esteems (selects for honour,— κρίνει ἀξίαν τιμιἢ5) (one) day above (reff.) (another) day; another (the strong) es- teems (ἀξίαν τιμῆ5) every day. Let each be fully satisfied in hisown mind. It is an interesting question, what indication is here found of the observance or non-obser- vance of a day of obligation in the apostolic times. The Apostle decides nothing ; leav- ing every man’s own mind to guide him in the point. He classes the observance or non-observance of particular days, with the eating or abstaining from particular meats. In both cases, he is concerned with things which he evidently treats as of absolute in- difference in themselves. Now the question om ev A 38. 54 fuld Chr, is, supposing the divine obligation of one day in seven to have been recognized by him in any form, could he have thus spoken ? The obvious inference from his strain of arguing is, that he Anew of no such obliga- tion, but believed all times and days to be, to the Christian strong in faith, ALIKE. I do not see how the passage can be other- wise understood. If any one day in the week were invested with the sacred cha- racter of the Sabbath, it would have been wholly impossible for the Apostle to com- mend or uphold the man who judged all days worthy of equal honour,—who as in ver. 6 paid xo regard to the (any) day. He must have visited him with his strongest disapprobation, as violating a command of God. I therefore infer, that sabbatical ob- ligation to keep any day, whether seventh or first, was not recognized in apostolie times. 1t must be carefully remembered, that this inference does not concern the question of the observance of the Lord’s Day as an institution of the Christian Church, analogous to the ancient Sabbath, binding on us from considerations of hw- manity and religious expediency, and by the rules of that branch of the Church in which Providence has placed us, but not in any way inheriting the divinely-ap- pointed obligation of the other, or the strict prohibitions by which its sanctity was de- fended. The reply commonly furnished to these considerations, viz. that the Apostle was speaking here only of Jewish festivals, and therefore cannot refer to Christian ones, is a quibble of the poorest kind: its assertors themselves distinctly maintaining the obligation of one such Jewish festival on Christians. What I maintain is, that had the Apostle believed as they do, he could not by any possibility have written thus. Besides, in the face of πᾶσαν ἡμέ- ραν, the assertion is altogether unfounded. 6.| The words in brackets were probably omitted from the similar ending x ὦ ΟΣ. xi. ὁ ABCD FL[P]N abcdf ghkl mnol7Z [47] 5—10. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTY. 4.53 \ ς 4 c / b a \ e ἡ a ι τὴν ἡμέραν "“ κυρίῳ “ φρονεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ ὃ φρονῶν τὴν «Δαι, οἱ. ν.5, (yee δἰ c ’ > ἢ A Wee 5 7 τ , “ ᾿ 10 al. Winer. ἡμέραν, “ κυρίῳ ov " φρονεῖ]. καὶ ὁ ἐσθίων “ κυρίῳ ἐσθίει, al \ a a " “εὐχαριστεῖ γὰρ τῷ θεῷ: καὶ ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων “ κυρίῳ οὐκ τῷ πατρὶ 5 7 \ d 2) A A A > \ \ ς A e ~ D ὃ Hal ἐσθίει καὶ ἃ εὐχαριστεῖ τῷ θεῷ. 7 ovdels yap ἡμῶν © ἑαυτῷ τ}. 153 a \ BS Nis igh ie ra ae θ ΄ ΞΖ \ A θεοῖς ζῇ, καὶ οὐδεὶς “ ἑαυτῷ ἀποθνήσκει: ἐάν TE γὰρ ζῶμεν, τέθνηκεν aA , a 5. > ΄ a ὗ “τῷ κυρίῳ ζῶμεν, ἐάν τε ἀποθνήσκωμεν, “ τῷ κυρίῳ Soph ’Aj. 990. , +7 > a A d ch. i. 8 reff. ἀποθνήσκομεν. ἐάν τε οὖν ζῶμεν ἐάν τε ἀποθνήσκωμεν, e = gen.,1 Cor. 11. 23 reff. a f 5 ’ > lal \ Ν Eis “τοῦ κυρίου ἐσμέν. 5 felis τοῦτο yap χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν MEK.) Ware Ἐν £”, \ - \ ΄ ἢ ͵ , 97. Acts ix. καὶ ὅ ἔζησεν, ' wa καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων ® κυριεύσῃ. 10 σὺ 21. 1 John ε lll. al. g = Rev. ii. 8. xx. 4, 4 Kings xiii. 21. h Luke xxii. 25. ch. vi. 99 14. vii. 1. .1. 24. 2 Ti vi. 15 only. L.P. Gen. iii. 16. BEE ie ae 6. om Kat o μὴ Op. THY NM. K. ov φρ. (homeotel) ABC!DFR vulg copt eth [Orig-int, ] Ambrst Aug,; om from yuepay to ἡμεραν 661, from εσθιει to eo bier 71-3 lect-19: from Tw θεω to τω θεω Li: ins C3L[P] rel syrr [arm] Bas, Chr-txt, Thdrt-txt Damase Phot, ΤῊ] Ce. rec om καὶ (bef o ἐσθ.) [with 47]: ins ABCDFL[P]X rel [vulg syrr copt 2th arm] Bas Chr Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] (Ke [Orig-int,] Ambrst Pel. [for evy. yap, και evx. P ¢ Syr arm(Tischdf) Clem, Isid, Damasc. ] for lst θεω, kupiw A 52: Creatori Ambrst. 8. for lst αποθνησκωμεν, αποθνησκομεν ADE[P 47] al Ephr, Damase: ἀποθανωμεν CL 1017: (both appear to be corrns: the former for uniformity, imagining that ζωμεν, ζωμεν were both indic ; the latter for the sense, as representing the state after death :) αποθανομεν n: txt BN rel Chr, Cyr[-p] Thdrt. om 2nd τω F. for αποθνησ- Kouev, αποθνησκωμεν [CL JX d! Καὶ [Chr-ms]. aft last εαν τε ins ovy Ε΄. for 2nd αποθνησκωμεν, ἀποθνήσκομεν Α ΕἾ ΡῚ f m1 n [47 Ephr,] Thl: ἀποθανωμεν 108-35. 219: txt BCLN 17 rel Chr, Cyr[-p Damasc] Thdrt. 9. rec ins καὶ bef απεθανεν, with C*D?LN% rel am [Syr] syr Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] (ἔς [Iren-int, Orig-int, Fulg,]: om A[appy] BC'D'-3F[P]X! ac ¢ 17 vulg copt [eth arm] Orig,[-int, ] Cyr-jer, Chr, Cyr[-p] Anast, Damase [Ambrst] Sedul. rec ins καὶ ανεστη bef x. εζησεν (see notes), with L[D?P]X3 rel [syr Ephr, Chr,] Thl c: aft, Syr: ins καὶ aveory, putting εζησ. bef xk. awed. kK. aveotn D!3 Iren-int, Gaud,: om ABCEN! fuld-vict syr copt [wth] arm Dion Cyr-jer, Chr, Cyrsepe Anast, Damase { Orig-int, ].—rec ave(noer, with Thdrt : aveorn F vulg Orig, Pel Fulg: txt ABCDL[P] δὲ rel. φρονεῖ of both clauses having misled some early copyists; but perhaps it may have been intentionally done, after the observa- tion of the Lord’s Day came to be regarded as binding. φρονῶν, taking account of, ‘regarding’ εὐχαριστεῖ, adduced as a practice of both parties, shews the uni- versality among the early Christians of thanking God at meals: see 1 Tim. iv. 3,4. The εὐχαριστία of the μὴ ἐσθίων was over his ‘ dinner of herbs.’ κυρίῳ is CHRIST. 7.j This verse illustrates the κυρίῳ of the former, and at the same time sets ina still plainer light than before, that both parties, the eater and the ab- stainer, are servants of another, even Christ. ἑαυτῷ and κυρίῳ are datives commodi: ζῇν and ἀποθνήσκειν represent the whole sum of our course on earth. 8.1 The inference,—that we are, under all circumstances, living or dying (and a fortiori eating or abstaining, ob- serving days or not observing them), CuRist’s: His property. 9.1 And this lordship over all was the great end of the Death and Resurrection of Christ. By that Death and Resurrection, the crowning events of his work of Redemp- tion, He was manifested as the righteous Head over the race of man, which now, and in consequence man’s world also, belongs by right to Him alone. The rec. text here, ἀπέθ. κ. ἀνέστη κ. ἀνέζησεν, may have arisen by the’insertion (1) of avé(noeyv as clearer than ἔζησεν, and (2) of ἀνέστη from the margin, where it was a gloss (1 Thess. iv. 14) explaining ἀνέ- (noev or ἔζησεν. Or, on the other hand, supposing it to have been the original, ἀνέζησεν may have been altered to ἔζησεν and κ. ἀνέστη left out, to conform it to vv. 7 and 8. In sucha case of doubt, the weight of early authority must decide. ἔζησεν, lived, viz. after His death; = ave(noev. The historical aorist points to a stated event as the commencement of the reviviscence, viz. the Resurrection. κι vexp. K. ζώντων) here, for uni- formity with what has gone before: in sense comprehending all created beings. 10.] He returns to the duty of abstaining,— the weak, from judging his 454 ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. XIV. 8 / x » , \ ὔ ᾽ Lal τνν. 8, 4 τοῦ. δὲ TLi κρίνεις τὸν * ἀδελφόν σου ; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί | ἐξουθενεῖς k = Matt. vii. φᾧ 9 r Σ ᾿ 7 x 3 al. . m ben ane ee ἀδελφόν σου; πάντες yap παραστησόμεθα τῳ m = Acts xxvii. , aA -“ lal > ΄ ’ a4. Dan τι "βήματι τοῦ θεοῦ. 11 γέγραπται γὰρ “ Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει 10. / a > \ , n ΄ \ a a i. Ρ q q Ὁ Acts xii. 21 κύριος τὲ ἐμοὺ 9 κάμψει 7 img gps πᾶσα tase — iv lal lal ¢ δ lal “δ T ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ θεῷ. 128 ἄρα [οὖν] ἕκαστος ἡμῶν περὶ Jer, Χπ.2 8. “© κι ͵ t 2 , A Ξ 13 7 = > ΄ Ἐπεὶ. ν ἢ. ἑαυτοῦ " λόγον [᾿ ἀπο] δώσει τῷ θεῷ. μηκέτι οὖν ἀλλη- ΒΕ ΑΙ τ ὶ ᾿ 3 \ a ε \ \ P constr of λους ἱκρίνωμεν, ἀλλὰ " τοῦτο * κρίνατε μᾶλλον, “TO μὴ th, 2 Cor. , U A a 3 1.18” Judith Υ τιθέναι ἡ πρόςκομμα TO ἀδελφῷ ἢ Y* σκάνδαλον. 13 οἶδα ἜΣΕΙ ἢ P \ qi = , ᾽ ee 2O\ Ζ \ δι᾽ « «ἢ. αἱ. ἀτεθ. καὶ ἡ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν 5 κοινὸν * δὲ Matt. xi. 25 ς a ? \ A , \ 3 2 / Philii il. ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ TO ὃ λογιζομένῳ τι ὅ κοινὸν εἶναι, ° ἐκείνῳ 2 Kings xxi. 50. 1. c. AN3D, s ch. y. 18 reff. t Acts xix. 40 reff. u2Cor. ii. 1. see 1 Pet. ii. 19. v = Acts xvi. 4. xx. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 37. 2 Cor. ii. 1. w ch. ix. 33 (reff.). x = Matt. xvi, 23. 1Cor.i.23. Rev. ii. 14. Ps. xlix. 21. y constr., ch. viii. 38 reff. z= Acts x. 14 reff. a see ch. ii. 27. ver. 20. 2 Cor. ii. 4. v. 7. Ὁ = ch, vi. 11, Phil. iii. 13. Wisd. xv. 15, c dat., = 1 Cor. iv. 3. 10. aft tov adeAg. σου (Ist) add ev τω un εσθιειν D'F am? Ambrst: also [F-lat] am? Ambrst aft adeAd. cov (2nd) add ev Tw εσθ. rec for θεου, χριστου (see note), with C2(appy) ΠΓΡΊΝϑ. rel [vulg-clem demid] syrr goth [eth arm-ed Did,] Orig, Chr, Thdor-mops, Thdrt Gennad, [Tert,]: txt ABC!DFX! [47-marg] am(with fuld harl mar tol) copt [arm-mss] Damasc [Orig-int,|(quod vero in presenti quidem loco tribunal Dei, ad Cor. vero tribunal Christi posuit, ego quidem nullam puto [esse | differentiam) Aug, { Fulg Sedul.—47! omits the last clause. 11. for ort, εἰ μη D}[-gr(appy, Tischdf)] F[-gr] (G-lat has both). εξομολογησεται bef πασα γλωσσα (so Lxx-A) Β D!*3(and lat] F goth [(Syr eth) Orig-int,] Ambrst Sedul: txt ACD?L[P]X rel vulg syr copt [arm Did,] Chr, Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] He Augse e+ 12. om ovy BD'F(P! Syr]: ins ACD3L[P?]& rel [syr copt goth arm] Chr, Thdrt [Antch, Damasc]. υμων C 116. for eav., αυὐτου C, αποδωσει BDIF Chr, ; δωσει ACD3L [P(bef Aoyor)] δὲ rel Polyc, Chr-ms, Thdrt [Antch, Damasc] ΤῺ] (Ec. om Tw θεω B [ D2(appy, Treg) ] F (Polyc) Cypr, Aug,: ins ACDL[P JX rel [vss] Chr, Thdrt [Antch, Damase Orig-int,] Ambrst, 13. κρινετε D'F [-vowev P(so Ρ m! for -vwuev above) ], om 7poskoupa and ἤ B Syr [arm ].—for 7, εἰς b! m n o [472] Chr-ms, Cyr, Antch). 14. for κυρ., χριστω L[P] bk mno. Thdrtexpr He: txt BCR ἃ m Chr, Damase ΤῊ], stronger brother; the strong, from de- spising the weaker. It seems probable that χριστοῦ has been substituted for θεοῦ in the later Mss. from 2 Cor. v. 10. The fact of Origen once citing it, decides nothing, in the presence of the expression βήματος Tov χριστοῦ in 2 Cor. 11.) The citation is according to the present Alexandrine text, except that our ζῶ ἐγώ = κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω. ἐξομ..] shall praise, see reff. ΤΧΧ-ΒΝΙ 34. following the Heb, has ὀμεϊται(ὀμνῖται δὲ1) πᾶσα γλῶσσα τὸν θεόν(κύριον &). 19.) The stress ison περὶ ἑαυτοῦ : and the next verse refers back to it, laying the emphasis on ἀλλήλους. “ Seeing that our account to God will be of each man’s own self, let us take heed lest by judging one another (κρίνομεν here in the general sense of ‘ pass judgment on,’ including both the ἐξουθενεῖν of the strong and the xpivew of the weak) we ineur the guilt of ἀπολλύειν one ano- ther.’ 18—23.] Exhortation to the for eavtov, αὐτου ADFL[P] rel Chr, strong to have regard to the conscientious scruples of the weak, and follow peace, not having respect merely to his own con- science, but to that of the other, which is his rule, and being violated leads to his condemnation. 13.] See above. The second κρίνατε is used as corresponding to the first, and is in fact a play on it: ‘pulchra mimesis ad id quod preecedit,’ Bengel: see James ii. 4 for another instance:—but determine this rather. πρόςκομμα (see ver. 21), an occasion of stumbling, in act: σκάνδαλον (ib.), an occasion of offence, in thought. 14,1] The general principle laid down, that nothing is by its own means,—i. 6. for any thing in itself (φύσει, Chrys.),—unclean, but only in reference to him who reckons it to be so. πέπεισμ.. ἐν Kup. Ino. | These words give to the persuasion the weight, not merely of Paul’s own λογίζομαι, but of apostolic authority. He is persuaded, in his capacity ABCD FL[P]& abcdf ghkl mnol/7 [47] 11—18. Zz [4 KOLVOV. σου ἐκεῖνον ἢ ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. Ε f/ , ἀπόλλυε, ὑπὲρ οὗ χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. 9S e al ΄ ἱ βλασφημείσθω οὖν ὑμῶν * τὸ ἀγαθόν. “ “ A \ τ βασιλεία τοῦ ™ Geod" βρῶσις καὶ 5 πόσις, ἀλλὰ ” δικαιο- 455 > \ lal fe A“ 15 εἰ γὰρ ἃ διὰ °Spadua ὁ ἀδελφός σου ' λυπεῖ- a= Jom αν. 5. \ > / a ται, οὐκ ETL KATA ἀγάπην © περιπατεῖς. h. xv. 15. \ Ae ΄ 4 VCorivats 5. MY Tw βρώματί e Matt. xiv. ] \ 15 li. Luke 6 μὴ iti, 11. 1 Cor. 3 Pee ae > x. dal. Hag. 1 ου yap ἐστιν | { Matt. xix. 22 |. 2Cor. ii. 2, &c., al. Sir. xxvi. 28. σύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ I χαρὰ ἐν «πνεύματι ἁγίῳ" 18 ὁ yap 5 -, «Ὁ αἰῆ. 12, i 2p 1 Thess. iv. 12 al. fr. > / , Lal A ΜΝ al n . ἐν τούτῳ " δουλεύων τῷ χριστῷ " εὐάρεστος τῷ θεῷ. Kat n= 1 Cor. viii. 18. Jamesiv.12. 2 Pet. iii. 9. 1 = John xvii. 3. m = 1 Cor. iv. 20. see Rev. i. 9. wii. 4. 2 Cor.ix.10. Col. it. 16. vi. ὅδ. Col. ii. 16 only. Dan. i 10 only. r = Acts xx. 19 reff. i= ch. iii. 8 reff. Heb. xii. 16 (Matt. vi. 19, 20) only. Gen. ii. 9 al. s ch. xii. 1, 2 reff. 11: xv. k = here only. (ch. ii. 10 reff.) n = John iy. 32. vi. 27 (bis), 55. 1 Cor. i o John p absol., Acts xvii. 31 reff. q 1 Thess. i. 6. 15. rec for yap, δε (see note), with [L(sic, Treg)] 17 rel [syrr] goth Chr, Thdrt : txt ABCDF[P]X ἃ τὰ vulg syr-mg copt [arm Antch,] Damasce, [Orig-int,] Ambrst Jer. om ὁ F. καταλύειν in ver 20) F (as latt). 16. om ουν F goth arm. amoAve D?L a h! Καὶ m n-marg [0]: καταλυε τ} : aroAAvew (and nuwy DF vulg [spec] Syr copt[has both] goth φῦ [Ὁ] Clem, Damase [ Orig-int,] Ath-int, Ambrst Aug). [17. Bpwoes AC F-gr. πόσεις A F-or. 18. rec τουτοις (see note), with D%LN% rel syrr goth [arm] Chr, Thdrt [ΤῊ] Cc] Tert,: txt ABC D}![and lat] ΕἸ ΡΊΝΙ vulg [spec] coptt Orig Chr Damase, [Orig- int Jexpr Ambrst Aug, Pel Bede. Chr 'Thdrt Damase. as connected with Christ Jesus,—as having the mind of Christ. 15.| The reading γάρ, besides the overwhelming authority in its favour, is the more difficult and charac- teristic. It can hardly (as Meyer and Tho- luck) depend on the εἰ μὴ «.7.A., for thus an awkwardness would be introduced into the connexion of the clauses: but I believe it to be elliptical, depending on the sup- pressed restatement of the precept of ver. 13: α. ἃ. ‘ But this knowledge is not to be yourrule in practice, but rather, &c., as in ver.13: f > Ν >’ Ν Ἁ ’ ΄ rch. xiii.9,10 7 Τῷ ὅ πλησίον " ἀρεσκέτω “ELS TO δ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς ᾿οἰκοδομήν. reff, ach. xiii.4 reff. 3 Ὁ -Ξ ch. xiv. 19 e ~ καὶ yap ὁ χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτῷ Y ἤρεσεν, “ ἀλλὰ καθὼς 7 ἢ , \ ial , f δαῖτα, τ Cor. γέγραπται Οἱ 4 ὀνειδισμοὶὲ τῶν “ ὀνειδιζόντων σε fér- i. 31. see / ee | > / ἔπεσαν ἐπ᾿ ἐμε. x1. 26. xiii. 13 only. Isa. xliii. 28. e Psa. Ixviii. 9. Matt. v. 1] al. Prov. xxv. 10. fActs xx. 37 reff. met., Acts viil. 16 reff. Exod. xv. 16. Ald. 1 Mace. x. 36 only. ἃ = 2 Cor. i. 3, οι, al. Ps. xciii. 19. n ch. vii. 27. 2 Cor. vii. 9—11. διὰ τῆς * om εἰς To αἀγαθον RN} (ins X-corr!). 3. om 6 DIF. 4 “ Ν 8 Φ΄ > \ h id σα yap ὃ προεγραφὴ εἰς THY ημε- , ὃ / > / “ Ν ‘ol i ς fol \ τέραν διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη, ἵνα διὰ τῆς ᾿ ὑπομονῆς καὶ παρακλήσεως τῶν | γραφῶν τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν. ὅ ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς ἰ ὑπομονῆς καὶ δῴη ὑμῖν ™ τὸ αὐτὸ ' φρονεῖν ἐν ἀλλήλοις " κατὰ χριστὸν τῆς "παρακλήσεως g 681. 1.1. Eph. iii. 3. Τά 4 only+. Esdr. vi, 31 [32] Ἐ(προςγρ. A) h objective, here only. ii 1 plur., Acts xvii. 2 reff. 1 Cor, xv. 91. ich. ii. 7 retf. m ch. xii. 16 refi see ch. xi. 31. rec ἐπέπεσον (as LXX-Ed-vat), with L rel: txt (as zxx-BN: A def) ABCDF/ P]& (g! ?) 1 mn 17 [47] Damase. 4. προςεγραφη DF: εγραφη B latt eth [arm Orig-int, Ambrst]}: txt ACD*L[P]& rel [-φει LP]. add παντα B[ P] m 17 [47]. rec (for eypapn) προεγραφη, with AL[P |X? rel syr Chr, Thdrt Damasc: txt BCDFX! vulg Syr copt goth eth [arm spec] Clem, [Orig-int] Ambrst Aug, [-¢er LP]. rec om 2nd δια, with [ C-corr(appy) P]DF vulg syr copt goth [spec Clem, |] Chr Thdrt, [ Orig-int,] Ambrst Aug Oros: ins ABCLX bdfgn Thdrt,. ins της παρακλήσεως B. [εχομεν Pafn17.]| aft exwuev 5. ino. bef xp. AC! F(not G-lat) [P]€ m vulg syrr [eth arm-ed] Did, Thdrt [Orig- int, | Ambrst. from the example of Christ (1—3),—and unanimity (4—7) as between Jew and Gentile, seeing that Christ was pro- phetically announced as the common Saviour of both (8—13). 1.] By ἡμεῖς of Suv. the Apostle includes himself among the strong, as indeed he before indicated, ch, xiv. 14. τὰ aod. are general, not merely referring to the scruples before treated. ἀρέσκειν (reff.) to please or satisfy as a habit or motive of action. Tholuck quotes from the Schol. on Asch. Prom. 156, παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ δίκαιον ἔχων Ζεύς,---πάντα δικαίως οἰόμενος ποιεῖν, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἀρέσκων καὶ δίκαιον νομίζων εἶναι ὅπερ ἂν βούληται πράττειν. 2.1 The qualification, εἰς τὸ ay. πρὸς oix., excludes all mere pleasing of men from the Christian’s motives of action. The Apostle repudiates it in his own case, Gal. i. 10. Bengel remarks, ‘bonum, genus, edificatio, species ’:—to a good end, and that good end his edification. 3.] ἐξῆν αὐτῷ μὴ ὀνειδισθῆναι, ἐξῆν μὴ παθεῖν ἅπερ ἔπαθεν, εἴγε ἤθελε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκοπεῖν" ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὐκ ἠθέλησεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἡμέτερον σκοπήσας τὸ ἑαυτοῦ παρεῖδε, Chrys. Hom. xxvii. p. 721 The cita- tion is made directly, without any thing to introduce the formula citandi, as in ch. ix. 7, where even the formula itself is want- ing:—there is no ellipsis. The words in the Messianic Psalm are addressed to the Father, not to those for whom Christ suffered: but they prove all that is here required, that He did not please Himself ; His sufferings were undertaken on account of the Father’s good purpose—mere work which He gave Him ito do. 4. The Apostle both justifies the above citation, and prepares the way for the subject to be next introduced, viz. the duty of unanimity, grounded on the testimony of these Scrip- tures to Christ. The ὅσα mpoeyp. applies to the whole ancient Scriptures, not to the prophetic parts only. ‘per. viz. of us Christians,—mpoeyp. implying πρὸ ἡμῶν. ἵνα διὰ τ. tr. κιτ.λ. τουτέστιν, ἵνα μὴ ἐκπέσωμεν' ποικίλοι γὰρ οἱ ἀγῶνες ἔσωθεν, ἔξωθεν. ἵνα νευρούμενοι κ. παρα- καλούμενοι παρὰ τῶν γραφῶν ὑπομονὴν ἐπιδειξώμεθα: ἵνα ἐν ὑπομονῇ ζῶντες μέ- νωμεν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐλπίδος. ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλων ἐστὶ κατασκευαστικά, ἣ ὑπομονὴ τῆς ἐλπί- Sos, ἣ ἐλπὶς τῆς ὑπομονῆς" ἅπερ ἀμφότερα ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν γίνεται, Chrys. ubi supra. As in this comment, ὑπομονῇ, as well as παρακλήσεως, is to be joined with τῶν ypapéy,—otherwise it stands unconnected with the subject of the sentence. The genitives then mean, the patience and the comfort arising from the Scriptures,—produced by their study. 5, 6.] Further introduction of the subject, by a prayer that God, who has given the Scriptures for these ends, might grant them unanimity, that they might with one accord shew forth His glory. In the title given to God, the ὑπομονή and παράκλησις just mentioned are taken Pn as ee nel gto 9--9. IPOS POMAIOTS 459 Ἰησοῦν, 6 iva ° ὁμοθυμαδὸν Ρ ἐν ἑνὶ P στόματι 9 δοξάξζητε 0 Acts i. Ἡ ref ch, x. 9 only. τὸν ᾿θεὸν καὶ "πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. = a 4. ΡΟΝ. ree ewrcore ἀλλήλους, καθὼς καὶ ὁ χριστὸς "20 a rrau or. 8 3. xi. 31. ὃ προςελάβετο ὑμᾶς, ‘eis δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ. λέγω γὰρ ae \ u 5 , A θ nA Vv ς * > θ if Col. i. 3) χριστὸν " διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς " ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας only, exc. 1 Pet. i. 3. a Ww > \ Χ n ἊΝ y 9 / la) Z ͵ R 6. θεοῦ εἰς πὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν ᾿ πατέρων, Rev. i. 6. " \ b] \ 3 ΄ s 3 9 τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ *édéovs «“ δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν, καθὼς. scorrii. : Διὰ τοῦτο » ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν ἔθνεσιν, τ. χῖν. 1,3 ch. xiy. 1, 3. γέγραπται μολογῆσομ ee u see Gal. ii. 17. v= Pinian.ls; w ch. iy. 11 reff. x Mark xvi. 20. 1Cor.i.6,8. 2Cor.i.21. Col. ii. 7. Heb. ii. 3. xiii. 9. Ps. xl. 12. cxviii. 28 only. ch. ix. 4. (iv. 13.) Gal. iii, 16. z absol., Acts vii. 19 reff. Ὁ ch. xiv. 11 reff. Psa. xvii. 49. ach. xi. 31 reff. ἡ. [om o F(not G).] rec μας, with BD![P] rel Thdrt [Damasc]: txt ACD?3FLN be g 1? mno17[vulg spec] syrr copt goth arm [eth Orig-int,] Chr, Ambrst. rec om tov, with L rel Chr, Thdrt [| Damase]: ins ABCDF{ ΡῚΝ m. 8. rec (for yap) δε (see note), with L rel syrr [arm] Chr, Thdrt [ΤῈ] Ec]: txt ABCDE[P]& vulg copt goth Cyr[-p, Damase Orig-int, ] Ambrst. rec ins τἡσουν bef χριστον, with DF [Ὁ ο] harl syrr; aft xp. L rel vulg goth [Ath,] Thdrt, Thl Cc [Ambrst]: om ABCN copt [eth arm Did,] Epiph, Chr- -comm, Cyr{-p,] Damase [ Orig-int, ]. γεένεσθαι (corrn 2) BC DIE’ ς [arm] Ath,: txt AC?D3L[ P]® rel [ Did, ] Epiph, Chr, Cyr[-p,] Thdrt Damasc. 9. for τουτο, του προφητου N'(txt N-corr!). clem(and harl tel guelph, not am fuld demid) syr copt Chr, Pel Sedul: cas(? = up again: q. ἃ. “ The God who alone can give this patience and comfort.” The later form of the opt., δῴη, 1 is also found 2 Tim. 1. 16,18; Eph. i. 17 al., in LXX Gen. xxvii. 28; xxviii. 4al. See Winer, edn. 6, § 14. 1. g. κατὰ xp. Ἰησοῦν, according to (the spirit and precepts of) Christ Jesus,—see reff. 6. τὸν θεὸν x. πατ.] De Wette regards τὸν θεὸν as independent of Ἰησοῦ xp.,—‘ God, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? The usage of the article will not decide the matter, because on either rendering, the accusatives both refer to the same Person: but the ordinary one, the God and Father... . is preferable on account of its simplicity. 7.) Wherefore (on which account, viz. that the wish of the last verse may be accomplished) re- ceive (see ch. xiv. 1) one another, as Christ also received you,—with a view to God’s glory (that this is the meaning of εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ, appears by ver. 9, τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν). The Apostle does uot expressly name Jewish and Gentile converts as those to whom he addresses this exhortation, but it is evident from the next verse that it is so. 8. | For (reason for the above exhortation. This not having been seen, it has been altered to δέ) I say, that Christ hath been made (has come as: the effects still en- during. It can hardly be that the usual historical aorist γενέσθαι (see var. readd.) was altered to the unusual perfect -yeye- γνῆσθαι. The tendency of correction was [aft εθνεσιν ins κυριε c ἢ 17 vulg- κε) &3,] entirely the other way) a minister (He came διακονῆσαι, Matt. xx. 28) of the cir- cumcision (an expression no where else found, and doubtless here used by Paul to humble the pride of the strong, the Gen- tile Christians, by exalting God’s covenant people to their true dignity) on account of the truth of God (i.e. for the fulfilment of the Divine pledges given under the cove- nant of circumcision) to confirm the pro- mises of (made to, gen. obj.; ef. ἢ εὐλογία Tov “ABpadu, Gal. 111. 14) the fathers (i.e. Christ came to the Jews in virtue of a long-sealed compact, to the fulfilment of which God’s truth was pledged): but (L say) that the Gentiles glorified God (or ‘should glorify God : Winer, in his former editions, § 45. 8, took it.as a perfect, and co-ordinate with γεγενῆσθαι : I would re- gard it (and so, apparently, Winer now, edn. 6, ὃ 44. 7. ¢) as the historic aorist, and understand ‘each man at his con- version. Least of all can it be sub- ordinated to εἰς τό, as is done in Εἰ. V.) on account of.(His) mercy (the emphasis is on ὑπὲρ ἐλέους : the Gentiles have no cove- nant promise to claim,—they have nothing but the pure mercy of God in grafting them in to allege—therefore the Jew has an advantage), ὅσ. The citations are from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. The first, originally spoken by David of his joy after his deliverances and triumphs, is prophetically said of Christ in His own Person. It is adduced to shew that among the Gentiles Christ’s 400 ‘ “ > , / An clCor.xiv.15 Καὶ τῷ ονοματὶ gov “ Ψαλῶ. (bis). Eph. ν. 19. James v. 13 only. 1 Kings xvi. 16. ἃ = Gal. iii. 16 see 1 Cor. vi. 16. e Acts vii. 41 reff. Devt. xxxii. 43. f here only. Psa. exvi. 1. (elsw., θεόν, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. / » Ἄν, a n 4 ~ φράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ. νεσάτωσαν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ ™ λαοί. λέγει "ἔσται ἡ ἱῥίζα τοῦ ᾿Ἰεσσαί, καὶ ὁ * lapyew ἐθνῶν, τὰ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ™ ἐλπιοῦσιν. θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος "πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς “πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ XV: 10 καὶ πάλιν ἃ λέγει " Εὐ- 11 καὶ πάλιν » a / \ ” . , ἀκ έγει7 Αἰνεῖτε πάντα ta ἔθνη τὸν ἴ κύριον. Kal © ἐπαι- βίον, 12 καὶ πάλιν Ἡσαΐας ἀνιστάμενος 13.9 δὲ veil) Ὑ ean Ρ 2 = , ᾳ > ee ᾽ὔ ς an ᾽ ef cree 6. ΕἸΡΏΨΡΗΣ “ Εν τῷ πιστεύειν, ἃ εἰς τὸ "περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ 1 Cor. xi. 2, > ͵ 4 j : bea 17, 22 only. 8 17, 2only. ἐλπίδι " ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου. 12 (1). h plur., Acts iv. 25 (from Ps. ii. 1), 27. Rev. vii. 9. x. 11. xi. 9. xvii. 15. vii. 11, 15 and, but act., Acts iii. 22 (from Deut. xviii. 15), 26. i Isa. xi. 1,10. see Rev. v. 5. xxii. 16. / 14t ]]έπεισμαι δέ, ἀδελφοί pov, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ περὶ k = Heb. 1 = Mark x. 42 only. Gen. i. 26, 28 al. m constr., 1 Tim. iv. 10. vi. 17. Ps. xxi. δ. dat. only, Matt. xii. 21. νυ. ἐπί and acc.,1 Tim. νυ. 5. 1 Pet. i. 13 (iii. 5rec.). ν΄. εἰς, John v.45. 2Cor.i.10. 1 Pet. iii. δ. p = Acts iv. 30 reff. q ch. iv. 11 reff. t constr., ch. viii. 38 reff. ψαλω bef τω ov. σ. DG [copt]. o= Acts xx. 19 reff. sch.i 4 reff. Ἢ Acts xili. 52 reff. rch. iii. 7 reff. Sir. xix. 24. 11. ins Aeye: BDF syrr copt goth eth[-rom arm-mss]: om ACL[ PX rel vulg [eth-pl arm-ed] (Chr,) Thdrt Damase ΤῺ] (ἔς [Orig-int,] Ambrst. rec Tov kup. bef 7. τα εθνη (corrn to LXX, where none read as in txt), with CFL rel Syr [eth arm-mss]} Thl (Ee [Orig-int,]: txt ABDN[P 47] vulg syr goth arm[-ed] Chr, Thdrt [Damase Ambrst ]. rec emawecate (so LXX-Kd-vat(B def) 884 &c), with FL[P] rel Chr, Thdrt [ΤῺ] Gc}: txt (so zxx-AN!) ABC[D]X® Chr-ms, Damase. 12. λεγει bef noaas δὲ [copt]. ανιστανομενος N (see digest ch xii. 8). 13. πληροφορησαι vuas (add ev B) παση xapa κ. εἰρηνη BF: txt ACDL[ PX rel. [om ev tw mor. DF spec arm Vig). ] om ev (bef τη ελπιδι) ΠῚ] F[-gr] Chr-ms. 57. om εἰς To περισσευειν (homeotel) B 14. κ. a. €. 7. um. bef αδελφοι μου DF Syr Thdrt.—om μου D!F Thdrt Ambrst. for περι, υπερ B. triumphs were to take place, as well as among the Jews. 10.1 καὶ πάλ. λέγει, viz. ἣ γραφή, or 6 θεός, which is in sub- stance the same: not impersonal: see ref. 1 Cor., note. The present Heb. text of Deut. xxxii. 43 will not bear this, which is the LXX rendering. But Tho- luck remarks, ‘‘ According to the present text the difficulty arises, that we must either take oa of the Jewish tribes, or construe P2171 with an accus., instead of with 5 (Gesen.): the reading of the LXX may therefore be right.” There is how- ever a reading toy-nx found in one and perhaps another of Kennicott’s Mss. which will bear the rendering of our text. In several passages where the Gentiles are spoken of prophetically, the Hebrew text has apparently been tampered with by the Jews. See Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Lite- rature for January, 1852, pp. 275 ff. 11, 12.] The universality of the praise to be given to God for His merciful kindness in sending His Son is prophetically indi- cated by the'first citation. In the latter a more direct announcement is given of the share which the Gentiles were to have in the root of Jesse. The version is that of the LXX, which here differs considerably fromthe Heb. The latter is nearly literally rendered in E.V.: “ And in that day there shall be a root (Heb. ‘andit shall happen in that day, a branch’) of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people: to it shall the Gentiles seek.” 18.1 The hortatory part of the Epistle, as well as the preceding section of it (ver. 5), concludes with a solemn wish for the spiritual wel- fare of the Roman church. The words τῆς ἐλπίδος connect with ἐλπιοῦσι of the foregoing verse, as was the case with τῆς ὑπομονῆς Kk. τῆς παρακλήσεως in ver. d. χαρᾶς κ. εἰρήνης, as the happy result of faith in God, and unanimity with one another ; see ch. xiv. 17. XV. 14—XVI. 27.] CONCLUSION OF THE EPISTLE. Persona No- TICES, RESPECTING THE APOSTLE HIM- SELF (xv. 14—33),—RESPECTING THOSE GREETED (xvi. 1—16), AND GREETING: TOGETHER WITH WARNINGS AGAINST THOSE WHO MADE DIVISIONS AMONG THEM (xvi. 16—23) ;—AND CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY (xvi. 24—27). 1433. } He first (14—16) excuses the boldness of his writing, by the allegation of his office as Apostle of the Gentiles. 14.) αὐτὸς éyw, I myself, = ‘idem,’ Lat.,—‘ notwith- ABCD FL[P]x abcdf ghkl mnol7 (47] 10—17. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. ὑμῶν ὅτι Kal αὐτοὶ ἃ μεστοί ἐστε [τῆς] πληρωμένοι ° πάσης ἀλλήλους 5 νουθετεῖν' Ὁ r ‘ = e 5 7 id “ ὑμῖν[, ἀδελφοί, 5 ἀπὸ * μέρους, ὡς " ἐπαναμιμνήσκων ὑμᾶς 1 Υ τολμηρότερον δὲ 401 ᾿ ἀγαθωσύνης Ὦ ἡγξ. ἃ οἱ. i. 29 reff. ᾽ v Gal. v. 22. , 4 δ h. v. 9. ἡ γνώσεως, δυνάμενοι καὶ Zhe i. 11 Z ava ae fe Neh. YP woe 1 Cor. i. 5 4]. ἔτ. x Acts xx. 31 reff. 7 a id ἈΝ lal an > > διὰ τὴν “ χάριν τὴν " δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ 16 4 εἰς y here only. x \ lal ’ “ ᾽ \ 7 τὸ εἶναί με ἃ λειτουργὸν χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ “ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, ᾿ ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ 8 εὐαγγέλιον \ κ᾿ ἡ ὃἣ προςφορὰ τῶν k b] ΄ e / ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. ἐθνῶν “ 8 θ “ / f τοῦ &Geov, ἵνα γένηται ἱεὐπρόςδεκτος, Polyb. i.17.7, τολμηρό- τερον ἐγχει- ρειν τοις πράγμασι. (-ρός, Sir. xix. 2, 3.) K ἡγιασμένη 5 7 “72: 171 ἔχω οὖν τὴν lm καύχησιν ἐν 2 ch. xi. 25 reff. a here only +. = Ch. xiv. 15 reff. ΟἹ Cor.i.4 reff. d ch. xiii. 6 reff. e = Col. i. 25. f here only +. see notes. g Mark i. 14. (Acts xx. 24.) ch.i.1. 2Cor. xi.7. 1 Thess. ii. 2, 85 9. (1 Tim. 1. 11.) 1 Pet. iv. 17 only. h Acts xxi. 26. xxiv. 17. Eph. νυ. 2. Heb. x. 5 (from Ps. xxxix. 6}, &c., nly iver. 31. 2 Cor. vi. 2. viii. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 5 only +. k (and constr. ) John xvii. 17. Xo. MGor: 3.2, Heb)x.10; 295) Isa, x, 17. 11 Cor. xv. 31. m ch. iii. 27 reff. om ka avtot DF Chr-comm[not 1-ms]. Pel: om ACDFL rel. ins καὶ bef πεπληρωμενοι DE Syr. αλληλους bef δυναμενοι and om καὶ D}*4[ -gr | F, for αγαθωσυνης, αγαπης F vulg Ambrst ins της BLP |& k ἢ Clem, [ Damasc] : for aAAnA., αλλους L rel vulg syrr Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] (Ες [Orig-int,]: txt ABCDFN[P 47] (f ?) 15. roAunpotepws AB: txt CDFL[P |X rel. Cyr[-p, Orig-int,] Aug, for emavap., ἐπι ΤΕ ΕΣ B: ACDL[P]&? rel. 16. for εἰναι, γενεσθαι D'[-gr] F[-gr]. [eth arm] Chr, Thdrt: Ambrst | Aug,. om evs ta εθνη B. txt ABCE[P|N m vulg syr Cyr[-p, om αδελφοι ABCN! copt seth Chr, : ins DFL[P]€? rel vulg Syr [syr arm Damasc] Thdrt Ambrst. υπαναμ. O. for υπο, απο BFX! Damasc: txt rec ino. bef xp., with DL rel Syr copt Damasc] Orig{-int, evn om evzposdextos F Fulg, “ 17. rec om τὴν (the art not being understood), with AL[P]®& rel [arm] Chr, [Cyr- Ῥ, Damasc] Thdrt: ins B C[appy] DF m. standing what I have written :’ see ch. vii. 25, note. Meyer understands it, ‘ without information from others: Bengel and Olsh., ‘ I myself, as well as others ? Riick- ert, ΕἾ not only wish it (ver. 13), but an persuaded for myself that it is so? καὶ αὐτοί, ye also yourselves, i i.e. with- out exhortation of mine. 15.] ἀπὸ μέρους restricts the τολμηρότερον. to cer- tain parts of the Epistle, 6. g. ch. xi. 17, ff. 25; chaps. xiii. and xiv. ἔγραψα, the dabam or scribebam of the Latins in episto- lary writing. ὡς ἐπαν. ὑμ., aS Put- ting you anew in remembrance. διὰ τ. χάριν. , because of the grace, &6.5) 1 θυ κἢ my “apostolic office was the ground and reason of my boldness :’—not = διὰ τῆς χάριτος ch. xii. 8. 16.] That I might be (εἰς τό gives the purpose of the grace being given, not of the ἔγραψα) a ministering priest of Christ Jesus for (in reference to) the Gentiles, ministering in the Gospel of God (ἱερουργοῦντα, mpos- φέροντα θυσίαν, Hesych.: but the εὐαγγέλ. τ. θεοῦ is not the θυσία, but signifies that wherein, in behoof of which, the ἱερουργεῖν took place: so Josephus, de Mace. § 7, speaking of the martyrs for the law, says, τοιούτους δεῖ εἶναι τοὺς ἱερουργοῦντας τὸν νόμον ἰδίῳ αἵματι, καὶ γενναίῳ ἱδρῶτι τοῖς μέχρι θανάτου πάθεσιν ὑπερασπί- (ovras), that the offering [up] of the Gen- tiles (gen. of apposition: the Gentiles themselves are the offering ; so Theophyl. αὕτη μοι ἱερωσύνη, τὸ καταγγέλλειν εὐαγ- γέλιον. μάχαιραν ἔχω τὸν λόγον" θυσία ἐστὲ ὑμεῖς) may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The language is evi- dently figurative, and can by no possibility be taken as a sanction for any view of the Christian minister as a sacrificing priest, otherwise than according to that figure— viz. that he offers to God the acceptable sacrifice of those who by his means believe on Christ. ““ Facit se antistitem vel sacer- dotem in Evangelii ministerio, qui populum, quem Deo acquirit, in sacrificium offerat, atque hoc modo sacris Evangelii mysteriis operetur. Et sane hoc est Christiani pas- toris sacerdotium, homines in Evangelii obedientiam subigendo veluti Deo im- molare: non, quod superciliose hactenus Papiste jactarunt, oblatione homines re- conciliare Deo. Neque tamen ecclesias- ticos pastores simpliciter hic vocat Sacer- dotes, tanquam perpetuo titulo: sed quum dignitatem efficaciamque ministerii vellet commendare Paulus, hac metaphora per occasionem est usus. Hie ergo finis sit Evangelii preeconibus in suo munere, ani- mas fide purificatas Deo offerre.” Calvin. 17—22.] The Apostle boasts of the extent and result of his apostolic mission among the Gentiles, and that in places EM, ες a A Δ \ fi“ > 4 , nuke xiv.32. χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ "τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν" 18 ov yap 5 τολμήσω Acts xxvul. ” e 9 , \ sos τ 9 : ‘i. ra) q r 10. Heb.ii, TE © λαλεῖν P ὧν οὐ “ κατειργάσατο χρίστος δι᾿ ἐμοῦ τ εἰς o Phil. i. 14. see 2 Macc. 462 ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. δ ἔργῳ, 19 " ἐν δυνάμει iv. 2. ͵ Ἢ 7 ε 5 ὃ ΄ , Φὸ ΡῈ patir, Acts σημείων καὶ " τεράτων, “ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος [ἁγίου], oo re € x \ / , a ? 1 Cor. vii 1 ὥςτε μὲ ἀπὸ ᾿ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ " κύκλῳ “ μέχρι TOU lh- Heb. v. 8. a x = ’ Winer,edn.6, λυρίκου “ TrETTANPWKEVAL ἢ 24. 2, end. qch. ii. 9 reff. Q0 rch. i. 5 (reff.). s 2 Cor. x. ll. Col. iii. 17. lal , \ τ ὑπακοὴν ἐθνῶν, ὅ λόγῳ καὶ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ. οὕτω δὲ ¥ φιλοτιμούμενον 7 εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, οὐχ ὅπου ἃ ὠνομάσθ ιστός, ἵνα μὴ ἐπ᾽ ὃ" ἀλλότριον ° θεμέλιον 1 John iii. 18. és ΠΝ “ ΓΕ ρ μ (see 1 Cor. iv. 19,20. 1 Thess. i. δ.) t ver. 13. u Acts vii. 36 reff. vy absol., Mark iii. 34. vi. 6, 36. Luke ix. 12 only. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 6. w.gen., Rev. iv. 6. v. 11. vii. ll only. Gen. xxxv. 5 al. w of place, here only. (ch. v. 14 reff.) Job xxxviii. 11. x = Col. i. 25. see Acts xii. 25. 2 Cor. v.9. 1 Thess. iv. 11 only t. z absol., Luke ix. 6. xx. 1. 16 bis, 18 only. Nah. i. 15. a= 2 Tim. ii. 19 only. c=1 Cor. iii. 10, 11,12. Heb. vi. 1. Ti@orvi Li. ix. Ὁ ch. xiv. 4 reff. Acts xiv. 7. Isa. xxvi. 13. rec om τον, with b: ins ABCDFL[P]® rel Did, Chr Cyr, Damase Thdrt (ec. 18. for roAunow, ToAuw BN latt Did, Dial-trin, Cyr[-p, Orig-int, Archel Ambrst]. rec λαλεῖν bef τι, with L rel copt [syrr eth arm] Me: txt ABCDF[P]X m [vulg] Bas, Ath, Did, Archel Chr, Cyr[-p] Thdrt [Damase Orig-int, Ambrst |—for λαλειν, εἰπειν DF: Aeyew and AaAnoa gr-ff. κατηργασατο DEL. ins o bef pioros F. aft δὲ euov add λογων B. for uv7ak., ἀκοὴν B. 19. aft Ist δυναμ. ins αὐτου DIF. (G! also ins αὐτου aft 2nd dur.) ree aft πνευματος ins θεου, with D?L[P]X€ rel Syr [syr-txt Euthal-ms] Chr-txt, Cyr[-p, Damasc] Thdrt ΤῊ] Ee; ayov AC D!-3/and lat] F ¢ m 17 [47] vulg copt syr[-marg | arm Ath, Bas, Chr-comm Cyr[-p, Did,] Dial,: om B Pel-comm Vig). wSTE πεπληρωσθαι απο Lep. μεχρι TOU LAA. και KUKAwW TO DF. 20. φιλοτιμουμαι (corrn of constr) B D'{-gr] F[P]: -μουμενος 116-[295] : om valg D-lat [Orig-int,]: txt ACD?3L® rel Orig. [ευαγγελισασθαι P πὶ Chr-mss,. | for ovx οπου, orov οὐκ D![-gr] F Chr,. απολλοτριὼ θεμελιω F. where none had preached before him. I have therefore (consequent on the grace and ministry just mentioned) my boasting (i.e. 1 venture to boast:’ not = ἔχω καύχημα, ‘ Ihave whereof I may glory,’ as E. V., but, as De W., = ἔχω καυχᾶσθαι, “1 can, or dare, boast’) in Christ Jesus (there is no stress on ἐν xp. *Ino.,—it merely qualifies τὴν καύχησιν as no vain glorying, but grounded in, consistent with, springing from, his relation and subser- viency to Christ) of (concerning) matters relating to God (my above-named sacer- dotaloffice and ministry). 18. | The con- nexion is: ‘I have real ground for glorying (in a legitimate and Christian manner) ;’ for I will not (as some false apostles do, see 2 Cor. x. 12—18) allow myself to speak of any of those things which (ὧν for ἐκείνων, ἅ, attr.) Christ did not work by me (but by some other) in order to the obedience (subjection to the Gospel) of the Gentiles (then, as if the sentence were in the affirma- tive form, ‘I will only boast of what Christ has veritably done by me towards the obe- dience of the Gentiles,’ he proceeds) by word and deed, 19.] in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the [ Holy | Spirit (the signs and wonders (reff.) are not spiritual, but external miraculous acts, — see 2 Cor. xii. 12), so that (result of the ins o bef χριστος D'F Chr,. er κατειργάσατο) from Jerusalem (the eastern boundary of his preaching) and the neigh- bourhood (κύκλῳ is not to be joined with μέχρι τ. “IAA. as Calov., al., but refers (reff.) to Jerusalem, meaning perhaps its immediate neighbourhood, perhaps Ara- bia (Ὁ), Gal. i. 17,—but hardly Damascus and Cilicia, as De W. suggests, seeing that they would come into the route afterwards specified, from Jerusalem to Illyricum), as far as Illyricum (Illyricum bordered on Macedonia to the S. It is possible that Paul may literally have advanced to its frontiers during his preaching in Mace- donia ; but I think it more probable, that he uses it broadly as the ‘terminus ad quem,’ the next province to that in which he had preached), I have fulfilled (ref. :-— ‘executed my office of preaching,’ so that εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ xp. = τὸ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι τὸν xp.) the Gospel of Christ. 20.] But (limits the foregoing assertion) thus (after the following rule) being careful (reff.: the word in the Apostle’s usage seems to lose its primary meaning of ‘making a point of honour? The par- ticip. agrees with με, ver. 19) to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was (previously) named, that I might not build on the foundation of another, but according asit is written (i.e. according to the following ABCD FL[ PJ] abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] 18—25. . ἃ οἰκοδομῶ, , \ > An v \ «Ὁ b] 5 / γέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὄψονται, καὶ ol οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν ® συν- ξ Ν \ , 4 ἡ “ lal ἤσουσιν. 2 διὸ καὶ » ἐνεκοπτόμην ‘ta i πολλὰ * τοῦ ἐλθεῖν \ con 93 \ δὲ s T pos ULas “Ὁ VUVL E μήκετιυ πὶ κλίμασιν τούτοις, " ἐπιποθίαν δὲ ἔχων 5 τοῦ ἐλθεῖν \ 6 “Ὁ p > Ν qr « “ r > »“ 94, ΕἸ ς Ἃ / πρὸς ὑμᾶς Ὁ ἀπὸ © ἱκανῶν * ἐτῶν, ὡς ἂν πορεύωμαι εἰ \ Ss / 3, sf \ t§ , y θ 7, ς τὴν Σπανίαν, (ἐλπίζω yap " διαπορευόμενος θεάσασ- -“ \ > lal A “ lal θαι ὑμᾶς καὶ ad ὑμῶν ἃ προπεμφθῆναι " ἐκεῖ, ἐὰν ὑμῶν A Ww > \ Ww , x ΡῚ δ θῶ πρῶτον “amo ἣ μέρους * ἐμπλησθῶ. iv. 5. only t. (-θεῖν, ch. i. 11.) q = Acts ix. 23 reff. Luke xxiii. 8 al. 1 absol., Luke xviii. 36 (vi. 1. xiii. 22. xv. 3 reff, ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. m 2 Cor. xi. 10. Gal. i. 21 only. r 2 Mace. i. 20. Acts xvi. 4) only. v= Matt. ii. 22. John xi. 8. xviii. 3. 463 3 \ 91 ε ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται Οἷς οὐκ ἴ ἀνηγ- 4 = Gatiiis. (ἐποικ., 1 Cor. iil. 12.) e ver. 3. f Acts xiv. 27 reff. Isa. lil ] , ” > a 15. * τόπον ἔχων ἐν τοῖς gch. iii. 11, Matt. xiii. 13, &c. Ephe vi L7e sts: ii. 10. Prov. 11: δὲ h Acts xxiv. reff. i here only. Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 30 k constr., Acts OF \ \ ΄ : 25 νυνὶ δὲ πορεύ- | xiv. 18 ref. 1 -= Acts xxv. 16 reff. Sir. (Judg. xx. 2 A Ald. compl. ?) n Here o constr., Acts xiv. 9 reff. p Luke vili. 43, s = 1 Cor. xi. 34. Phil. ii. 23 Zech. ix. 8. Xen. Anab. ii. 2.11. w ver. 15, x = here (Luke i. 53. vi. 25. Johnvi.12) only. Eccl. vi.3. Polyb. i. 17.3. see Acts xiv. 17. 21. amnyyedn C (238 ?): avnyyeAAn(sic) δὲ ὁ ἢ k? o. av. Β m [copt]. 22. for ενεκοπτομην, ενεκοπὴν DF. rel Chr, Thdrt [Damasc]. 23. [for μηκ., ουκετι P. | om του A. Thdrt: txt BC[ P| m Damase. οψονται bef os any. π. for Ta πολλα, moAAaKis BDF: txt ACL[ P|& for 2nd εχων, exw (corrn of constr) D'F m o. rec (for ikavwv) πολλων (more usual exprn), with ADFLX rel Chr, 24. rec (for av) cay, with L rel Chr, Thdrt: txt AB C(appy) DF[P]& Chr, Damase. add ovy DF. 1222 ; txt ABCN rel Chr, Thl. πορευομαι DE[P] a! bi cf m! n [47 Euthal-ms]: -σομαι L rec aft σπανιαν ins ελευσομαι προς vuas (fo fill up the aposiopesis: see note), with LX? rel syr [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Thl (ἔς : om ABCDF[P]X! latt Syr copt ath arm Chr, Damase [Orig-int,] Ambrst Pel Sedul. om yap F latt Syr copt eth [arm Orig-int, | (videbo vos et a vobis deducar Ambrst) : ins ABCDL[P]& syr [copt Euthal-ms] (‘Fhdrt,) Damase Thl Gc: δὲ a? 3. 5. 108!-20 Chr-ms Thdrt,. πορευθηναι P. | rule of Scripture: I determined to act in the spirit of these words, forming part of a general prophecy of the dispersion of that Gospef which I was preaching), &. The citation is from the LXX, περὶ αὐτοῦ refer- ring to 6 mats μου, ver. 13, but being un- represented in the Heb. Our E. V. ren- ders: “That which had not been told them, shall they see: and that which they had not heard, shall they consider.” 22. 86, not, because a foundation had been already laid at Rome by another: this would refer to merely a secondary part of the foregoing assertion : διό refers to the primary, viz. his having been so earnestly engaged in preaching elsewhere. τὰ πολλά, these many times: not [‘ for the most part,’ or], as Meyer, Fritz., ‘the greater number of times,’ — which would suggest the idea that there had been other ocvasions on which this hindrance had not been operative. 23.] py. tow. ἔχων, I have no more occasion, viz. of apostolic work. The participial construction prevails through- out, the participles standing as ‘direct πορευόμενος A 62 Damasc,. with ACL[P]§8 rel Chr, [Thdrt Damasc]: txt Βίαπο) DF (47. rec (for ap) ud, for προπεμφθ., verbs. This not having been seen, the words ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς have been in- serted to fill up what seemed an aposio- pesis. Now, however, I have no longer any business in these parts, but have had for many years past a desire to see you, whenever (as soonas) I journey into Spain. Respecting the question whether this jour- ney into Spain was ever taken, the views of Commentators have differed, according to their conclusion respecting the libera- tion of the Apostle from his imprison- ment at Rome. I have discussed this in the Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii. The reader may see, on the side of the completion of the journey, Neander, Pf. u. Leit., ed. 4, pp. 527—552,—and on the other side, Dr. Davidson, Introd. to N. T. vol. ii. pp. 96—132, and Wie- seler, Chron. der Apost. Zvitalt., Ex- cursus I., where a copious list of books on both sides is given. 24.] ἀπὸ μέρους is an affectionate limitation of ἐμπλησθῶ, implying that he would wish to remain much longer than he anti- cipated being able to do,—and also, as AG 22) Tim, 1.08: Philem. 13. Heb. vi. 10. pres. part., Winer, edn. 6, $45.1.2.a, Acts vi. 11. - OF xV. « z= Acts ix. 13 σαλήμ. ΠΡΟΣ ῬΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ: XV. 26—33. A -“ e Ψ τὰν, ομαι εἰς “Ιερουσαλὴμ δ διακονῶν τοῖς * ἁγίοις. 598 8 εὖ- δόκ up Μακεδονί L ᾿Αχαΐα » , ὰ noav γὰρ Μακεδονία καὶ ᾿Αχαΐα ὃ κοινωνίαν τινὰ \ a ς a ᾿ ποιήσασθαι " εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ὅ ἁγίων τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιερου- ς , ΄, , ee , A 27 ἃ εὐδόκησαν yap, καὶ “oderdéTat εἰσὶν αὐτῶν. a al a , / Ἅ ” εἰ yap τοῖς “ πνευματικοῖς αὐτῶν ' ἐκοινώνησαν τὰ ἔθνη, \ a lal ; a > lal £ ὀφείλουσιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ™ σαρκικοῖς | λειτουργῆσαι αὐτοῖς. 98 a ee) es , Ara ΄ > a \ 16. 58 χρῦτο οὗν * ἐπιτελέσας καὶ ' σφραγισάμενος αὑτοῖς τὸν Ῥ-ΞΞ 2 ΟΣ. ix. 13. Heb. xiii. 16 only. (-vetv, ver. 27. ch. xii. e — 1 Cor. xvi. I reff. ἃ ch. i. 14 reff. e Paul (ci. i. 11. vii. 14. 1 Cor. ix. 11 al.) only, exc. 1 Pet. ii. 5, bis τ΄. ix. 11 (iii. 3 reff.). f-ch. xii. 13 reff. - la > / Ὦ καρπὸν τοῦτον " ἀπελεύσομαι δι’ ὑμῶν "eis Σ-πανίαν' τ᾿ ἋΣ 4 A , > 29 οἶδα δὲ ὅτι ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν 9 πληρώματι ὃ ev- λογίας χριστοῦ ἐλεύσομαι. 30 4 παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, [ἀδελφοί,] 4 διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿ησοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ 4 διὰ τῆς "ἀγάπης τοῦ "πνεύματος, " συναγωνίσασθαί μοι ἐν g ver. 1 reff. h‘=1 Cor. i=here only. (Acts xiii. 2 reff.) 3 Kingsi.4. (-yla, 2 Cor. ix. 12. -γός, ver. 16.) k 2 Cor. vii. 1. viii. 6, 11 bis. 1 Kings ili. 12. of sacred rites, Heb. ix. 6. lsee John iii. 33. m = Gal. ν. 22. Eph. v.9. Heb. xii. 11. James iii. 18. n= Matt. viii. 19. x. 5 al. fr. Josh. vi. 11. o = Eph. iii. 19. p ch. xvi. 18. 1 Cor. x. 16. 2Cor.ix.5al. Ezek. xxxiv. 26, q ch. xii. 1 reff. r here only. see Col. i. 8. s here onty t. (ἀγων- Col. iv. 12.) 25. διακονησαι DF latt [Orig-int, Ambrst]: διακονησων δὲ! : txt ABCL[ PN? rel. 26. evdoxnoev B 62. 120 Thdrt,{(and ms,) Chr-c,]: G-lat has both (ηυδ. B'X m [Chr-com]: so [Α Ἰδὲ τὴ Chr-ms in next ver). των ev tep. αγιων D ΕἾ -gr]. 27. for evdoK. yap και οφειλεται, oped. yap DF Ambrst. also has makatdoves. μακαιδονε5 Kat αχαιακοι F, D!-lat rec αὐτων bef εἰσι», with FL rel: txt ABCD[P|& vulg(with am &c agst fuld &c) spec Syr copt [arm Damasce Orig-int, | Ambrst. 28. aft τουτο ovy ins apa F. δι vuas F. rel: om ABDIF[P]X! m Chr, [Damasc]. 29. for oda δε, γινώσκω yap F. om ἐρχόμενος F. om 2nd auvtwy L. oppayicapevors(sic) N. rec ins τὴν bef σπανιαν (none om τὴν in ver 24), with CLR3 om avros B 76. 108. mAnpodopta D!F. rec ins Tov ευαγγελιου Tov bef χριστου (prob a gloss), with LX? rel vulg[-clem arm-mss] syrr Chr, Thdrt: om ABCDF[ ΡΊΝ am(with demid harl [fuld tol]) copt eth arm[-ed](om xp. also) Clem, [Orig-int, Ambrst]. 30. om αδελῴοι B 76 eth Chr, : ins bef παρακ. vu. a(in red) lectt (and C3-marg); bef vu., demid: add μου syrr copt (the variations in posn are suspicious : but may not the word, characteristic as it is here, have been first rejected as unnecessary, and then noted in the margin, and variously inserted ? του bef κυριου L ἃ 74. 120 lectt. Chrys. οὐδεὶς γάρ με χρόνος ἐμπλῆσαι δύναται, οὐδὲ ἐμποιῆσαί μοι κόρον τῆς συνουσίας ὑμῶν. 25.] See Acts xix. 21; xxiv. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 19. διακονῶν, not the future, because he treats the whole action as already begun ; see reff. 26.] See 2 Cor. ix. 1, ff. KoLvov. | See reff. Olsh. remarks, on τοὺς πτω- χοὺς τ. ἁγίων, that this shews the com- munity of goods in the church at Jerusa- Jem not to have lasted long: ef. Gal. ii. 10. 27.) The fact is re-stated, with a view to an inference from it, viz. that the εὐδόκησαν was not merely a matter of benevolence, but of repayment: the Gen- tiles being debtors to the Jews for spiritual blessings. This general principle is very similarly enounced in 1 Cor. ix. 11. It is suggested by Grot., al., that by this Paul wished to hint to the Romans the duty of Lachm retains it). ins ovouaros a similar contribution. 28.] καρπόν, hardly, as Calv., al., “ proventum quem ex Evangelii satione ad Judzos redire nuper dixit :’ more probably said generally,— Sruit of the faith and bs of the Gentiles. σφραγισ.., ὡς εἰς βασιλικὰ ταμιεῖα ἐναποθέμενος ὡς ἐν ἀσύλῳ κ. ἀσφαλεῖ χωρίῳ, Chrys. Hom. xxx. p. 739. U ὑμῶν, through yourcity. 29.] The fulness of the blessing of Christ imports that rich- ness of apostolic grace which he was per- suaded he should impart to them. So he calls his presence in the churches a χάρις, 2 Cor. i. 15. See also ch, i. 11. 32.) τ. ἀγάπ. τ. πνεύμ.., the love shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost ;—a love ABCD FL[P JX abcdf ghkl mnol7 [47] which teaches us to look not only on our - own things, but on the things of others. συναγων.] “ Ipse oret oportet, qui alios vult orare secum. Orare, agon est, ΧΎΞΙΣ ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 405 -“ A e \ a Ν / ταῖς ‘mposevyais ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ ' πρὸς τὸν θεόν, 3) ἵνα tactaxii.s ren u = οἢ. vii. 2ὲ ¢ a ’ \ a > ΄ a ἃ ῥδυσθῶ ἀπὸ τῶν " ἀπειθούντων ἐν τῇ ‘lovdaia, καὶ ἡ τῇ v= Acts xiv. 2 reff. / 3 ᾽ 6 ΄ - “ διακονία μου *7 εἰς ἱΙερουσαλὴμ, Y εὐπρόςδεκτος τοῖς w= Acts νι reff. e 2 ὦ “3ἅμ 2 a 2 ἁγίοις γένηται, 35 wa *év χαρᾷ ἔλθω πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὃ διὰ ~ellips., ch. ii > θελήματος ὃ θεοῦ, καὶ ° συναναπαύσωμαι ὑμῖν]. ἃ θεὸς τῆς ἃ εἰρήνης μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. ὑμῖν Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν, XVI. 1 f Συνίστημι δὲ 33 ¢ 5 8 al. fr. a y ver. 16 reff. ὁ δὲ z = vv. 25, 26. > “ἢ a= 1 Corsi: αμην. 3 al. ea ] b 1 Cor. i. 1. 2 Cor. 1.15 viii. 5. Eph. i. los Coby 3 ἴω / an n ζ Ἢ οὖσαν & διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς, 2 ἵνα τ Ὑ 11. 1 only. Ἀ προςδέξησθε αὐτὴν “év κυρίῳ ὃ ἀξίως τῶν 'daylwv καὶ © ber only. ἑ xvi. 18. 2Cor. vii. 13.) Isa. xi. 6 only. 9. 1 Thess. v. 23. Heb. xiii. 20. (2 Thess, iii. 16.) (see 1 Cor. 1 Cor, xiv. 33. 2 Cor. xiii.11. Phil. iv. e ellips., Matt. i. 23. ch. xvi. d ch. xvi. 20. 20 [24]. 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24 al. f — 2 Cor. iii. 1. v. 12. (ch. ili. 5 reff.) 1 Macc. xii. 43. g — Phil.i.1. 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12. fem., here only. hy — Phil. 1529: 1 vv. 8,12. 1 Cor. xvi. 19 al. k Eph. iv. 1. Phil. i. 27. Col. i. 10. 1 Thess. ii. 12. 3John6only+. Wisd. vii. 15. xvi. 1. Sir. xiv. 11 only. 1.= Acts ix. 13 reff. aft mposevxais ins ὑμων DF [n?] vulg-ed(not am demid fuld harl? [mar]) [copt zth] Pel. om ὑπερ εμου F [ D!-lat Orig-int, }. 31. rec aft καὶ ins wa, with D?3[-gr] LX? rel syr Chr, Thdrt [ΤῊ] @c]: om AB C[appy] DI F[P]N! latt Syr copt arm Damasc [Orig-int, ] Ambrst Pel. tor διακονια, dwpopopia (corra to avoid harshness of διακον. εἰς rep.: see below) BD'F, remuneratio D'-lat, munerum meorum ministratio Ambrst: txt AC D?3-gr LN vss(administratio G-lat, obsequii oblatio vulg, ministerium D?-lat [Orig-int]) Chr, Thdrt Damase Th! (Ke. Orig-int,]: txt ΑΒΟΓΡῚΝ m. om 2nd ἡ L[P] b! ἢ m 73. 93. 122 Thdrt[-ms,] Chr-ms. ΒΕ: txt ACD3L[P]& rel Chr-ms Thdrt, [Damasc] Thl. F.] rec yernta bef τοις aytors, with for εἰς, ev [for evrpos., mposdexros DFL rel [(vulg) syr copt arm Chr, Thdrt 32. ελθων AC δὲ! 17 [copt arm Orig-int, (of these] &! [copt Orig-int have it] bef Xapa). σου D'F [fuld ] Thdrt Damasc ΤῊ] (ec [{ Orig-int, |. for θεου, Kupiov τιησου B [domini wxth(“ ut sepe pro Geos,” Tischdf | : χριστου : moov χριστου δὲϊ : txt ACD3L[ PX rel [vulg syrr copt arm | Chr, om καὶ συναναπαυσῶμαι υμιν B: ins (ACDF)L(8) rel vss Chr, Euthal, Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] ec [(Orig-int) Ambrst]: om καὶ δὲ 1 ΑὉ ath arm Damasce Orig-int ].—avayviw D: ἀναψυχω Ἐ'.---μεθ υμων DF latt. 33. ins ntw bef wera DIF latt Syr [eth arm Orig-int, ]. om ἀμὴν AF: ins BCDL[P]k rel [vulg syrr copt 2th arm] Chr, Thdrt Damase ΤᾺ] (Ἐς [Orig-int, ]. Cuap. XVI. 1. om de D!F eth arm Sedul. ovoay ins και BCLS 47. vuwy A F{-gr] P [k] ΤῊ]. aft 2. rec avtny bef προΞδεξησθε, with ALPN rel vulg Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damase Orig-int, |] Ambrst: txt BCDF ἃ harl copt. preesertim ubi homines resistunt.” Bengel. 31.] Compare Acts xx. 22; xxi. 10—14. The exaeeding hatred in which the Apostle was held by the Jews, and their want of fellow-feeling with the Gen- tile churches, made him fear lest even the ministration with which he was charged might not prove acceptable to them. 82.] διὰ θελ. θεοῦ = ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ, 1 Cor. iv. 19: otherwise in reff. [k. συναν. tp., and may refresh myself together with you;—i. 6. ‘that we may mutually refresh ourselves, I after my dan- gers and deliverance, you after your anxie- ties for me.’ But the text is in’ some confusion. } Cuap. XVI. 1—16.] Re- COMMENDATION OF PHBE: GREETINGS. 1, 3.1 In all probability Phoebe was the bearer of the Epistle, as stated in the (rec.) subscription. διάκονον] Dea- coness. See] Tim. iii. 11, note. Pliny in Vor. ΤΊ. his celebrated letter to Trajan says, ‘‘ne- cessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis que ministre dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta querere.” A minute discussion of their office, &c., in later times may be found in Suicer, Thesaurus, sub vore; and in Bingham, book ii. chap. 22, ὃ 8. Ne- ander, PA. u. Leit., ed. 4, pp. 265—267, shews that the deaconesses must not be confounded with the χῆραι of 1 Tim. v. 3—16, as has sometimes been done. KeEencHrem®, the port of Corinth (τῶν Κορινθίων ἐπίνειον, Philo in Flace. ὃ 19, vol. ii, p. 589: κώμη τις τῆς Κορίνθου μεγίστη, Theodoret, h. 1.) on the Saronic eulf of the Agean, for commerce with the east (Acts xviii. 18): seventy stadia from Corinth, Strabo viii. 380. Pausan. ii. 2, 3. Livy xxxii. 17. Plin. iv. 4. The Apos- tolical Constitutions (vii. 46, p, 1055. Migne) make the first bishop of the Cen- Ha 406 ΠΡῸΣ POMAIOTS. XVI. m A 2 oA 5 > eK e a n ' ΄ a \ m—2Tim.iv, "WAPATTHTE AUT EV ὦ AV υὑμῶὼν yentn πράγματι καὶ 11 only. Jer. \ Ni ͵΄ ΧΩ > θ Ὁ ΝΣ ra) 5) a xv. il. Yap αὐτὴ ° προστάτις TOAAWY ἐγενηθη, καὶ ἐμοῦ αὑτοῦ. n: ΕΥ̓ ΣῊΝ = < \ , , \ , sing δῆς, 3’Acracacbe IIpicxav καὶ ᾿Ακύλαν τοὺς P cuvepyous 2 Cor. iii. 1 , a“ Ἶ a 4, q [2 ὑ EL Th r A ov only, duds. OU EV χρίστῳ ἰησοῦ, οίτινες ὑπερ τῆς υχῆς μ xi. al. ‘ με δεν 2 ᾽ 5, νος f attics TOP ἑαυτῶν * τράχηλον δὰ ὑχγέθηκαν, οἷς οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος . “ \ f t » 9 / »“ 3 lal i δον εὐχαριστῶ ἀλλὰ Kal πᾶσαι al “ ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν, xxvii. 31. 8606 εν Ν \ x , 5 δον ες x2 , > ΄, geet EES) Pee TYP, Υ κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν * ἐκκλησίαν. ἀσπάσασθε og ΣΝ 7, \ > , “ » > \ a ἐπ, Εμταίνετον τὸν *ayamntov pov, ὃς ἐστιν * ἀπαρχὴ τῆς only, exc. 3 John 8+. 2 Mace. viii. 7. xiv.5 only. (-yetv, ch. viii. 28.) xv. 26 reff. s here only. Sir. li, 26 (but not —). Ὁ 1 Tim. iy. 6 only. vy to man, here only. (ch. 1. 8 reff.) x 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Col. iv. 15. y Acts ii. 46 reff. a ch. viii. 23 reff. q = Acts x. 41 reff. r= Acts t Acts xv. 10 reff. w ver. 16 reff. Philem. 2. z Acts xv. 25 reff, for προστατις to εμου, Kat Euov Kat aAAwY προστατις eyeveTo D; k. €. K.a. παραστατεις [ey.] F. rec αὐτου bef εμου, with rel [arm] Chr-c,-montf, (ἔς : kat avtov καὶ euov XN: txt ABC L(Treg, expr) Pd m vulg [Syr] syr copt [wth] Chr-2-mss, Thdrt Damasce ΤῊ] [ Orig-int,], ἐμου τε αὐτου A. 3. [ασπασθε F (so often below). | rec πρισκιλλαν (corrn to Acts xviii. 2, Fe), with rel syrr eth Chr, Thdrt(riy yap Πρίσκιλλαν ἢ Πρίσκαν, ἀμφότερα γάρ ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις) Ambrst: txt ABCDFLPR ἃ gh τὰ [n] 17. 47 [vulg copt arm Euthal-ms Damasce Orig-int, ]. εκκλ. DIF, [4. eavrov Pc. δ. [om lst clause P; see D!F, ver 3. ] ured. bef tpax. P. | at end, instead of in ver 5, ins και τ. κατ. οι. aut. for amapxn, aw apxns D!-gr, in principio D!-lat: @ principio G-lat: om ἀπαρχὴ της ΡΒ". chrean church to have been Lucius, con- secrated by Paul himself (Winer, Realw.). The western port, on the Sinus Corinthia- cus, was Leche (Paus.), Lechee (Plin.), or Lecheum (Strab., Ptol.). 2.) ἐν κυρίῳ, in a Christian manner,—as mindful of your common Lord: ἀξίως τ. ἁγίων, ‘in a manner worthy of saints ;’ i.e. ‘as saints ought to do,’ —refers to mposdéinode, and therefore to their conduct to her ;— not, ‘as saints ought to be received.’ παραστῆτε] Her business at Rome may have been such as to require the help of those resident there. προστάτις πολλῶν] This may refer to a part of the deaconess’s office, the attending on the poor and sick of her own sex. K. ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ] when and where, we know not. It is not improbable that she may have been, like Lydia, one whose heart the Lord opened at the first preaching of Paul, and whose house was his lodging. 3, 4. ] The form Prisca is also found 2 Tim. iv. 19. On Prisca and Aquila see note, Acts xviii. 2. They must have returned to Rome from Epbesus since the sending of 1 Cor. :—see 1 Cor, xvi. 19: and we find them again at Ephesus (?), 2 Tim. iv. 19. Their en- dangering of their lives for Paul may have taken place at Corinth (Acts xviii. 6 ff.) or at Ephesus (Acts xix.). See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 441. “ὑποτιθέναι est prgnori opponere. Demosth.in Aphobum: ἀπέτισα τὴν λειτουργίαν, ὑποθεὶς τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ τἀμαυτοῦ πάντας Aschines: ὑπέθησαν αὐτῷ τοῦ ταλάντου τὰς δημοσίας mpos- ὀδους. Wetst. The ‘churches of the Gentiles’ had reason to be thankful to them, for having rescued the Apostle of the Gentiles from danger. It seems to have been the practice of Aquila and Priscilla (ref. 1 Cor.) and some other Chris- tians (reff. Col., Philem.) to hold assem- blies for worship in their houses, which were saluted, and sent salutations as one body in the Lord. Some light is thrown on the expression by the following passage from the Acta Martyrii S. Justini, in Ruinart, cited by Neander, Church Hist. i. 330, Rose’s trans. ‘ The answer of Justin Martyr to the question of the prefect ( Rus- ticus) ‘ Where do you assemble?’ exactly corresponds to the genuine Christian spirit on this point. The answer was; ‘ Where each one can and will. You believe, no doubt, that we all meet together in one place; but it is not so, for the God of the Christians is not shut up in a room, but, being invisible, He fills both heaven and earth, and is honoured every where by the faithful” Justin adds, that when he came to Rome, he was accustomed to dwell in one particular spot, and that those Chris-. tians who were instructed by him, and wished to hear his discourse, assembled at his house. (This assembly would accord- ingly be 7 κατ᾽ οἶκον τοῦ ᾿Ιουστίνου ἐκ- κλησία.) He had not visited any other con- gregations of the Church.” 5.] Ερω- uetus is not elsewhere named. ἀπαρχή, ABCDF LU vjxa bedfg hkim nol7 [47] 9--.ς-9. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 407 6 ἀσπάσασθε Μαριάν, © ἥτις πολλὰ db see ch. αν. 16. ΄ ; ο Acts x. 41 7 ἀσπάσασθε ᾿Ανδρόνικον καὶ 3 r Ασίας ὃ εἰς χριστόν. reff. d Matt. vi. 28. ς “Ὁ ἃ ἐκοπίασεν εἰς ὑμᾶς. Ὁ a i ΄ A . 35 Ιουνιᾶν τοὺς “ συγγενεῖς μου καὶ ᾿συναιχμαλώτους mov, a. Ps. ce δὲ ΄ » Seo! 3 La ee ἢ τὴ \ , exxvi. 1. οἵτινές εἰσιν ὃ ἐπίσημοι EV τοῖς " ἀποστολοίῖς, OL καὶ προ och hae ως, A >’ ᾽ / ἐμοῦ γέγοναν iév χριστῷ: 8 ἀσπάσασθε᾿ Αμπλίατον τὸν Fos” φ , = ἤ ΟΞ ΄ ’ \ \ Levit. xxy. ἀγαπητόν μου ἐν κυρίῳ. 3 ἀσπάσασθε Οὐρβανὸν τὸν 45. \ A ἢ " \ > x αἴ f ‘ol. iv. 10. Κ συνεργὸν ἡμῶν ἐν χριστῷ, καὶ Στάχυν τὸν 5 ἀγαπητόν Philem.23 g Matt. xxvii. 16 only. Esth. ν. 4. 3 Mace. vi. 1. 4 note. 11 Cor. i. 30. Eph. ii. 13. rec for acias, axaias, with D?-3LP rel syrr Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] Gc: txt ABCD! FR latt(not harl!) copt eth arm Damase Orig-intyexpr Ambrst. (The rec has prob been an error of the scribe, who had amapxn της axatas,1 Cor xvi. 15, in his mind. To suppose, with De Wette, that he altered ax. here to ac. to avoid the inconsistency of two persons being the first fruits of Achaia, is surely too far-fetched.) for εἰς χριστον, ev χριστω DF latt syrr Orig-int). 6. rec μαριαμ,, with DFLN rel Chr, Thdrt [Damasc] ΤῊ] : txt ABCP copt arm. rec εἰς μας, with ΟΣ, rel syr Chr-comm, Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] Gic: εν υὑμιν Ὁ ΕἾ -gr] latt[(in domino F-lat) Orig-int-mss vary between nobis and vodis| Ambrst: txt ABC'PR Syr copt eth [arm]. 7. ins tous bef συναιχμαλωτους B. om οἱ δὲ! [ Damasc]. for οἱ Κ. πρὸ eu. yey-, τοις πρὸ εμου DF. rec γεγονασιν, with CLP rel: txt A B(sic: see table) &. aft χριστω add τησου DF Ambrst Pel Jer. . 8. rec ἀμπλιαν, with B2 C(appy) D[-gr] LP rel syrr [arm] Chr, Thdrt Chron Damase ΤῊ] Gc: txt A B}(Tischdf) FX latt copt eth [Orig-int, Ambrst].—om τὸν b}. om μου B F[-gr |(not G). 9. [vuwy Ρ.] for χριστω, κυριω CDF ὁ marm Chr-3-mss: txt ABLPR rel [am fuld &c] syrr 2th [copt Chr-montf Thdrt Damase] Orig-int, [Ambrst, in Christo Jesu Polyb. xviii. 38.1. Jos. Antt. v. 7. 1. 1 Pet. v. 14. h see Acts xiv. k ver. 3 reff. vulg-clem ]. the same metaphor being in the Apostle’s mind as in ch. xv. 16,—the first believer. On ᾿Ασίας see var. readd. eis xp., elliptical: the full construction would be τῆς Mpospopas eis xp. 6.] None of the names occurring from ver. 5—15 are mentioned elsewhere (except possibly Ru- fus: see below). De Wette remarks, that, notwithstanding the manuscript an- thority, éis ἡμᾶς is perhaps the more likely reading, (1) because the Apostle would hardly mention a service done to themselves as a ground of salutation from him, and (2) because kom Gy without being expressly fol- lowed by λόγῳ (1 Tim. v. 17: see Phil. ii. 16; Col. i. 29), said of women, most likely implies acts of kindness peculiar to the sex. 7.7 ἸἸουνιᾶν may be fem. (louviar), from *lovvia (Junia), in which case she is probably the wife of Andronicus,—or masc., from ἸἸουνιᾶς (Junianus, contr. Junias). It is uncertain also whether συγγενεῖς means fellow-countrymen, or relations. Aquila and Priscilla were Jews : so would Maria be, and probably Epznetus, being an early believer. If so, the word may have its strict meaning of ‘ relations.’ But it seems to occur vv. 11, 21 in a wider sense. συναιχμ.} When and where, uncertain. ἐπίσημοι ἐν τ. ἀποστ.] Two renderings are given: (1) ‘of note among the Apostles,’ so that they them- selves are counted among the Apostles: thus the Greek ff. (τὸ ἀποστόλους εἶναι, μέγα: τὸ δὲ καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐπισήμους εἶναι, ἐννόησον ἡλίκον ἐγκώμιον, Chrys.), Calv., Est., Wolf, Thol., Καὶ ὅ]]1η., Olsh., al. : or (2) ‘noted among the Apustiles, i.e. well known and spoken of by the Apostles. Thus Beza, Grot., Koppe, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., De W. But, as Thol. remarks, had this latter been the meaning, we should have expected some expression like διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν (2 Cor. viii. 18). I may besides remark, that for Paul to speak of any persons as celebrated among the Apostles in sense (2), would imply that he had more frequent intercourse with the other Apostles, than we know that he had ; and would besides be improbable on any supposition. The whole question seems to have sprung up in modern times from the idea that of ἀπόστολοι must. mean the Twelve only. If the wider sense found in Acts xiv. 4, 14; 2 Cor. viii. 28; 1 Thess. ii. 6 (compare i. 1) be taken, there need be no doubt concerning the meaning. ot kat... .] refers to Andr. and Jun., not to the Apostles. In the use of yéyo- vav, there is a mixed construction—* who have been longer than me,” and “‘ who were before me.” 8 ft.] Ampliatus = Am- plias: see v. r. ay. ἐν κυρ. beloved in the bonds of Christian fellowship. H # ἃ 408 μου. Ich. xiv. 18 att . , \ , “-“ ’ 4 mseelCor.i. ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐκ ™ τῶν ᾿Αριστοβούλου. ll. Ἡρωδίωνα tov * συγγενῆ pov. ” 5 ay Ναρκίσσου τοὺς ὄντας ἐν κυρίῳ. - 4, 7 ͵ ναν καὶ Γρυφῶσαν τὰς * κοπιώσας ἐν κυρίῳ. n ch. viii. 33 reff. o = Acts ix. 13 reff. ΄ » an Vue An p | Cor. xvi. 20. μήτερα QUTOU και ELLOUV. 2 Cor. xiii. 12. 1 Thess. νυν. 26. see 1 Pet. v. 14. q as above (p). Luke vii. 45. xxii. 48 only. Prov. xxvil. 6. Cant. i. 2 only. r plur., Acts ἀδελφούς. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. - ’ Le / αὐτοῖς πάντας 5 ἁγίους. AVE / “ ‘ ’ ae a 10 ἀσπάσασθε ᾿Απελλῆν τὸν δόκιμον έν χριστῷ. ll ἀσπάσασθε ἀσπάσασθε τοὺ; ἐκ ™ τῶν 19 ἀσπάσασθε Τρύφα:- ἀσπάσασθε “ / \ Ζ ᾽ » \ d ’ / 3 Ps Περσίδα τὴν 2 ayarntiy, ἥτις πολλὰ “ ἐκοπίασε" ἐν κυρίω. lal ’ ‘ 5 \ \ 13 ἀσπάσασθε “Poddov tov " ἐκλεκτὸν ἐν κυρίῳ, καὶ THD lt ἀσπάσασθε ᾿Ασύγκριτον, Φλέ- a f ¢ “ Ν \ a yovta, Ἑρμῆν, llatpoBav, “Ἑρμᾶν, καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς - , , ‘ / / 15 ἀσπάσασθε Φιλόλογον καὶ ᾿Ιουλίαν, Νηρέα vad \ >’ “-“ \ καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ᾿Ολυμπᾶν, καὶ τοὺς σὺν 16 ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους P ἐν αν. di. χτὶ. 5. PY φιλήματι ἢ ἁγίῳ. ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ" ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι ver.4. 1 Cor vii. 17, xi. 16 al. 10. 11. 12. 14. TOU χριστοῦ. συγγενην A B'(Tischdf) D!. κοπιασας C. αριστοβολου (for -Bovaov) BIF vulg [ D!-lat]. om from ev κυριω to ev κυριῳ AF (and G). rec epuay π. epuny, with D3L rel [vulg-clem demid] Syr syr(txt and mg-gr) arm Chr, ‘Thdrt Chron, Ambrst : txt ABC D![and lat] FP& τὰ am(with fuld harl flor mar [tol]) copt eth Orig-int,. 15. covviay CIF. yvnpeav AF, fom 3rd καὶ Ῥ ὁ Ambrst. ] ολυμπειδα F, Olympiadem latt Orig-int Ambrst : ολυμπιαν D? arm. 16. om ασπαζονται.. πασαι TOV Xp. . χριστου DF, but aft συγγ. μου ver 21 read καὶ at εκκλ. rec om πασαι (see note), with rel Chr, [Damase} Thl (Ge: ins ABC(DF)LPX m [vulg syrr copt eth arm] (Chr-comm ?) Cyr[-p,] Thdrt Orig int, Ainbrst Pel Bede. συνεργ. ἐν xp., fellow-workman in (the work of) Christ. Origen and others have confounded Apelles with the well-known Apollos, but apparently with- out reason. Cf. Hor. Sat. i. 5. 100. δόκιμ. ἐν xp., approved (by trial) in (the work of) Christ. It does not follow that either Aristobulus or Narcissus were them- selves Christians. Only those of their familie (τοὺς ἐκ τῶν) are here saluted who were ἐν κυρίῳ: for we must under- stand this also after ᾿Αριστοβούλου. avyy., see above. Grot., Neander, al., liave taken Narcissus for the well-known freedman of Claudius. But this can hardly be, for he was executed (Tac. Ann. xiii. 1) in the very beginning of Nero’s reign, i. 6. cir. 55 A.D., whereas (see Prolegg. ὃ iv. 4, and Chronol. Table) this Epistle cannot have well been written before 58 A.D. Perhaps, as Winer (Realw.) suggests, the family of this Narcissus may have con- tinued to be thus known after his death (?). 18.] Rufus may have been the son of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned Mark xv. 21: but the name was very common. éxXextov—not to be softened, as De W., al., to merely ‘eximium,’ a sense unknown to our Apostle ;—elect. i.e. one of the elect of the Lord. καὶ ἐμοῦ the Apostle adds from affectionate regard towards the mother of Rufus: ‘my mother,’ in my reverence and affection for her. Jowett compares our Lord’s words to St. John, John xix. 27. 14.] These Christians of whom we have only the names, seem to be persons of less repute than the former. Hermas (= Hermodorus, Grot.) is thought by Origen (in loc. “ Puto, quod Hermas iste sit scriptor libelli istius qui Pastor ap- pellatur”’), Eus. H. Εἰ. iii. 3, and Jerome, Catal. script. eccl., 6. x., vol. il, p. 846, to be the author of the ‘Shepherd. But this latter is generally supposed to have been the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, about 150 Α.Ὁ. The σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀδελφοί of ver. 14, and σὺν αὐτοῖς πάντες ἅγιοι of ver. 15, have been taken by De W. and Reiche to point to some separate asso- ciations of Christians, perhaps (De W.) «s- semblies as in ver. 5: or ( Reiche) unions for missionary purposes. 16.] The mean- ing of this injunction seems to be, that the Roman Christians should take occasion, ou the receipt of the Apostle’s greetings to them, to testify their mutual love, in this, the ordinary method of salutation, but having among Christians a Christian and holy meaning, see retf. It became soon a custom in the churches at the celebration ABCTDF ΚΓΡῚΝ 4 bed fg hkim nol7 [47 J δ παν Kat τους... ΑΒΟΒΕ L[P]x a bedef ghkl mnol? [417] “δ. ἃ.» «Ὡς a a «ὦ, 10—20. ΤΕΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 469 wn »» fn \ A 17s Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ‘oxomsivy τοὺς Tas “ -- οἱ. χῇ, ἢ ren. err. pate υ διχοστασίας Kal τὰ " σκάνδαλα ἡ παρὰ τὴν * διδαχὴν ἣν yee ta, ¢ a 3 ΄ rn \ ᾽ ͵ ΓΝ, ρον ἢ 18 e Gal. vi. 1: ὑμεῖς ἐμάθετε ποιοῦντας, Kat ¥ ἐκκλίνατε Y aT αὐτῶν. οἱ Pili d. \ a A ͵ va A iii. 17 only Τ. yap TOLOUTOL TO) KUPL® ἡμῶν χριστῳ οὐ 2 δουλεύουσιν, 2 sei ee ἡλλ Ν lal id lal a δ, ff \ ὃ Ν ΄“- b Ἂν UJ \ ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῶν ὃ κοιλίᾳ, Kal διὰ τῆς > χρηστολογίας καὶ c ’ / d > aA \ / nm e > s 19 e 29 i εὐλογίας ἃ ἐξαπατῶσιν Tas καρδίας τῶν “ ἀκάκων. Bondy. ον κ᾿ δι λα f < \ ᾽ ΄ g 3 ΄ Fs Sup? cA 5 reff. yap ὑμῶν fuTaKon εἰς πάντας ὃ ἀφίκετο ἐφ ὑμῖν οὖν w= ἐν. 1.26 ͵ , δὲ c lal \ 3 h » \ h , 7 i ᾽ reff. > χαίρω, θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς σοφοὺς εἶναι " εἰς TO ἀγαθόν, Ἷ ἀκε- x= Acts ii. 42 u Gal. v. 20 only t. 1 Macc. iii. 7 Ν ᾿ \ » , ¢ « Ἶ \ Lal 7 5 ; paious δὲ εἰς τὸ *xaxov. 530 ὁ δὲ ᾿ θεὸς τῆς l εἰρήνης * ten tii 12) only. Ps. Xxxvi. 27. z = Acts xx. 19 reff. b here only τ. c = here only. see note. (ch. xv. 29 reff.) e =. here (Heb. vii. 26) only. Prov. i. 4. viii. ὃ al. f ch, i. ὃ reff. i. 27. = Sir. xlvii. 16. h ch. xiii. 4 reff. k ch. ii. 9 reff. l ch. xv. 33 reff. a = Phil. iii. 19. Prov. xxiv. 15. d ch. vii. 11 reff g here only. Prov. i Matt. x. 16. Phil. ii. 15 only t. 17. for παρακαλω, epwrw D! 3, rogo latt. Sing-cler. for mapa, περι D}[-gr]. εκκλινετε BCR! m Thdrt Damase. 18. om τω F. rec ins iqgou bef χριστω, with L rel Syr copt zth-pl arm-mss Chr, [Damasc]: om ABCDFPR e m vuilg syr eth-rom arm-ed Orig-int,.—xp. bef ἡμῶν DF. δουλευσουσιν ΕἾ -gr]. om και ευλογιας (homeotel) D!F 17 Chr-ms. 19. ὑπακοὴ bef υμων D-gr F. rec xaipw ουν To ed υμιν, with (DF)? rel vulg syrr copt (arm) Chr, Thdrt: τὸ eg’ υμιν συνχαιρω, omg ovy, m(m! Treg): txt ABCLPR! for σκοπειν, ασφαλως σκοπειτε DEF ins λέγοντας ἡ bef ποιουντ. DF Sing-cler. Damasc Orig-int,.—om τὸ D!F d (arin). for 6. δε, και θελω D}(and-lat] F Syr eth. rec aft σοφους adds μεν (on account of δε follg ?), with ACPR rel syr [Chr- montf,] Thl Gc Aug,;: om BDFL [0] copt [zth arm] Clem, Czs,(but om also δὲ follg) Chr[-mss,] Thdrt Orig-int,. of the Lord’s Supper. See Suicer under ἀσπασμός and φίλημα, and Bingham, xv. 3.3. ἀσπάΐξ. tp. at ἐκκλ. a. | ‘This as- surance is stated evidently on the Apostle’s authority, speaking for the churches; not implying as Bengel, “ quibuscum fui, c. xv. 26. His significarat, se Romam scribere,” but vouching for the brotherly regard in which the Roman church was held by all ehurches of Christ. The above misunder- standing has led to the exclusion of πᾶται. 17—20.] WARNING AGAINST THOSE WHO MADE DIVISIONS AMONG THEM. ‘To what persons the Apostle re- fers, is not plain. Some (Thol., al.) think the Judaizers to be meant, not absolutely within the Christian pale, but endeavour- ing to sow dissension in it: and so, nearly, Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 452. De ὃν. thinks that Paul merely gives this warn- ing im case such persons came to Rome, Judging by the text itself, we infer that these teachers were similar to those pointed out in Phil. iii, 2,18; 1 Tim. vi. 3 ff; 2 Cor. xi. 13, 20: unprincipled and selfish persons, seducing others for their own gain: whether Judaizers or not, does not appear: but considering that the great op- ponents of the Apostle were of this party, we may perhaps infer that they also be- longed to it. 17.] σκοπεῖν = βλέ- mew, Phil. iii. 2. The διδαχή here spoken of is probably rather ethical than doctri- bal; compare Eph. iv. 20—24. 18. | χρηστολογία, κολακεία, Theophyl. Wet- stein cites trom Julius Capitolinus, in Per- tinace, 13, “omnes, qui libere conferebant, male Pertinacem loquebantur, chrestolo- gum eum appellantes, qui bene loqueretur et male faceret.” εὐλογίας, fairness of speech: so Plato, Rep. iii. 400 D, evAo- via ἄρα κ. εὐαρμοστία Kk. εὐσχημοσύνη κ. εὐρυθμία εὐηθείᾳ ἀκολουθεῖ---ΟΥ perhaps ‘ eulogies’ (flatteries), as Pind. Nem. iv. 8, οὐδὲ θερμὸν ὕδωρ τόσον | ye μαλθακὰ τεύχει | γυῖα, τόσσον εὐλογία φόρ | μιγγι συνάορος. 19.] See οἷ. 1. 8. Their obedience being matter of universal noto- riety, is the ground of his confidence that they will comply with his entreaty, ver. Ve Some slight reproof is conveyed in χαίρω, θέλω δὲ κιτ.λ. They were well known for obedience, but had not been perhaps cautious enough with regard to these designing persons and their pre- tended wisdom. See Matt. x. 16, οἵ which words of our Lord there seems to be here a reminiscence. 20. } ἐπειδὴ γὰρ εἶπε τιὺς τὰς διχοστασίας κ. τὰ σκάνδαλα ποιοῦντας, εἶπεν εἰρήνη5 θεόν, ἵνα θαρσήσωσι περὶ τῆς τούτων ἀπαλλαγῆς. Chrys. Hom. xxxii. p. 755: and so most Commentators, De W. prefers taking ὁ θ. τῆς εἰρ. more gene- rally as ‘the God of salvation; and the usage of the expression (see reff.) seems to favour this. συντρ. τ. oat. is ἃ similitude from Gen. il, 18, 470 m Matt. xii. 20. Mark v. 4. 3, vise ‘Gee: Ss) , Cagis 21 ᾿Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς Gen. xix. 9. Luke xviii. 8. Acts xil. 7. 5 xxii. 18. xxv. 4. Rev.i.l. xxii. 6 only. ᾽ ᾿ Deut. xxviii. ΕΨ κυρίῳ. 20. é o ellips.,ch. xv. t 33 reff. p ver. 3 reff. q vv. 7, 11 reff. r see ] Cor. v. 9 reff. s = here only. Diod. Sic. « A > , αν. ὑμῶν. any. | Xen. rare Ni. 1. t Acts v. 11: xv. 22. 2.) “μὴν: viii. 9. Jos. Antt. xi. 6. 12. ὅλης τῆς " ἐκκλησίας. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. ΠΡΟΣ POMATOTS: νόμος τῆς πόλεως, καὶ Kovaptos ὁ ἀδελφός. χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ AVE m , \ ΄σ Ὁ Ν Ἁ ὃ ς ~ n , ΠῚ / συντρίψει τὸν σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν " Ev" τάχει. ΄ a / ε A ,’ lal a7 » Maes - Ἢ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ [χριστοῦ] ° μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. , ἃ / Τιμόθεος ὁ Pourepyos μου, Kat £ » / \ -- ΄ an Λούκιος καὶ ᾿Ιάσων καὶ Σωσίπατρος οἱ I συγγενεῖς μου. o) 9 / ἐν a) 5 \ Te e , Τ \ ᾽ \ 2 ἀσπάζομαι ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Teptios ὁ γράψας ' τὴν ἐπιστολὴν 23 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Laios ὁ ὃ ξένος μου καὶ - ἢ Ul 3 cal v . ΠῚ > I ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς "ἔραστος ὁ ἃ οἰκο- [Ὁ Ἢ \ ͵ ° META TAVTWV (Luke xvi. 1, ἄς. u = here only. 1 Cor. iv. 1, 20. συντριψαι A 67? vulg(am demid harl F-lat agst fuld tol) G-lat spec Orig,{-int,] Thdrt-comm Ambry. D{not D-lat?} F Sedul. m?*(Treg): om ABCLPNX rel vss gr-lat-ff. ev τάχει bef υπο τ. π. nuwy A [ (Syr) | om χριστου BR. . om last clause elz at end adds αμην, with [a(e sil) ] 21. rec ασπαζονται, with DL rel Syr Thdrt Ee: txt ABCD!FPX m latt syr copt [wth(salutate = ἀσπαζετε) arm Chr, Thl Orig-int, Ambrst. om 2nd ka B fom και tac. 47]. Tov xv (see ver 16). 23. rec τ. ἐεκκλησιας bef oAns, with Lrel Chr, Thdrt : -clem(with demid) } copt(eced. omnis) : txt ABCDPR m am [fuld tol] ἡ εκκλησια Vuly syrr. [24. om ver ABCN am(with fuld harl! &) copt zeth-rom [Orig-int, ] : om Ist μου Β 67?. at end D!F add και at εκκλησιαι πασαι oAa at exkAnoia F eth: oAn ins DFL rel [vulg-ed demid tol harl? syr| Chr, Thdrt [Kuthal-ms Damasec] ΤῊ] Ge Sedul Bede ; and (but aft ver 27) P 17. 80 Syr eth-pl [arm] Ambrst.—for ἡμῶν, υὑμων L: om P [m].—om ino. xp. F.] συντρίψει, not as Stuart, ‘for optative,’ nor does it express any wish, but a prophetic assurance and encourage- ment in bearing up against all adver- saries, that it would not be long before the great Adversary himself would be bruised under their feet. ἡ χάρις κιτ.λ. It appears as if the Epistle was intended to conclude with this usual bene- diction, but the Apostle found occasion to add more. ‘This he does also in other Epistles: see 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24; similarly Phil. iv. 20, and vv. 21—28 after the dox- ology,—2 Thess. iii. 16, 17, 18:—1 Tim. vi. 16, 17 ff. :— 2 Tim. iv. 18, 19 ff. 21— 24. | GREETINGS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. 21.] Lucius must not be mistaken for Lucas (= Lucanus),—but was proba- bly Lucius of Cyrene, Acts xiii. 1, see note there. Jason may be the same who is mentioned Acts xvii. 5, 7, as the host of Paul and Silas at Thessalonica. A *Sopater (son) of Pyrrhus of Berea’ occurs Acts xx. 4, but it is quite uncertain whether this Sosipater is the same person. οἱ συγγενεῖς, see above, ver. 7. These persons way have been Jews ; but we can- not tell whether the expression may not be used in a wider sense. 22.) There is vothing strange (as Olsh. supposes) in this . salutation being inserted in the first person. It would be natural enough that Tertius the amanuensis, inserting ἄσπάζεται du. Τέρτ. 6 yp. τ. ἐπ. ἐν κυρ., Should change the form into the first person, and after- wards proceed from the dictation of the Apostle as before. Beza and Grot. sup- pose him to have done this on transcribing the Epistle. ‘Thol. notices this irregularity as a corroboration of the genuineness of the chapter. On the supposed identity of Tertius with Silas see note on Acts xv. 22. 28.] Gaius is mentioned 1 Cor. i. 14, as having been baptized by Paul. The host of the whole church probably implies that the assemblies of the church were held in his house :—or perhaps, that his hospi- tality to Christians was universal. Eras- tus, holding this office (οἰκονόμος, the pub- lic treasurer, ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς δημοσίας τραπέζης, arcarius, Wetst., who quotes from inscrip- tions, Νείλῳ οἰκονόμῳ ”Acias,—Secundus, arkarius Reip. Armerinorum), can hardly have been the same who was with the Apostle in Ephesus, Acts xix. 22. It is more probable that the Erastus of 2 Tim. iv. 20 is identical with this than with that other. ὁ ἀδελφός, our brother [see 1 Cor. i. 1], —the generic singular 5 one among οἱ ἀδελφοί, ‘the brethren’ The rest have been specified by their services or offices. (24.] The benediction ARCDE L[P]x a bedef ghk1l mnol? [47] 21—26. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. 471 95 A Vv \ , ς A Ww 7 QA A x ’ , , : 3 4 To δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς ᾿' στηρίξαι κατὰ TO “εὐαγγέλιον ° 1 Tim, i. 17. Χ } ΝΟΥ ή Ἴ +r ΓΖ Ne ΖΗ Ὁ few ich ll. μου καὶ τὸ ἡ κήρυγμα ‘Inoov χριστοῦ *KaTa ™ ἀποκά- Luke xxii. b / c / c ᾽ / d t 96 e seialy ἘΠῚ i AU Wu μυστήριου XPovoals AL@WVLOLS OEOLYNLEVOVU φα- 12 (14). x ch. ii. 16. 2 Tim. ii. 8 only. see 2 Cor. iv. 3. 1 Thess. i. 5. 2 Thess. ii. 14. y (--) Matt. xii 41\|\L. 1 Cor. 1. 21. ii, 4. xv. 14. 2 Tim. iv. 17. Tit. i. 3 only. (2 Chron. xxx. 5. Prov. ix. 3.) z Gal. ii. 2. Eph. iii. 3 only. a ch. viii. 19 reff. b ch. xi. 25, c 2 Tim. i. 9. Tit. i. 2 only. see Gen. ix. 12. dat. of duration, Luke viii. 29. ch. viii. 11. d = here only (Acts xii. 17 reff.). L.P. Ps. xxxi. ὃ, e ch. i. 19 reff. 25, 26,27. These verses are variously placed: (1) m BCDN 16. 80. 137-76 latt Syr copt eth [Orig-int,] Ambrst Pel Bede they stand here and bere only : (11) they stand aft ch xiv 23 in L rel and about 192 others syr goth(appy) Chr Thdrt Damasce ΤῊ] (ΕΣ Theodul: (III) they are omd altogether in (D*?) F[-gr](a space is left aft xvi. 24) G(a space is left aft xiv. 23) Mcion( penitus abstulit aceg to Orig(seé Orig in Rom. lib. x. 48, vol. iv. p. 687) as also chaps xv. xvi.) some mss in Jer(appy): (IV) they occur in both places in AP 5. 17. 109-lat arm-zoh. Paul. (Sz reckons 246 mss of St. Here 16 are defective (see Sz, addg 126), 21 are unexamined (see Sz, addg 216. 239 to 246), 7 are not distinct mss (viz. 8. 10. 56. 60-1-6. 117), and 5 are included under “ rel.”’) 25. [μας m (and P in ch xiv.). ] χρίστου bef inoov B. repeated ; see above on ver. 20. The omission (see var. read.) has perhaps been by the caprice of the copyists.] 25—27.| CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY. The genuineness of this doxology, and its position in the Epistle have been much questioned. The external evidence will be found in the var. readings ;—from which it is plain, that its genuineness as a part of the Epistle is pluced beyond αἰ reasonable doubt. Nor does the variety of position militate here, as in some cases, against this conclusion. For the transference of it to the end of ch. xiv. may be explained, partly from the supposed reference of στηρίξαι to the question treated in ch. xiv. (so Chrys., πάλιν yap ἐκείνων ἔχεται τῶν ἀσθενῶν, kK. πρὸς αὐτοὺς τρέπει τὸν λόγον), partly from the supposed in- appropriateness of it here after the bene- diction of ver. 24, in consequence of which that verse is omitted by mss. which have the doxology here,—partly from the unusual character of the position and diction of the doxology itself. This latter has been used as an internal argu- ment against the genuineness of the por- tion. Paul never elsewhere ends with such ἃ doxology. His doxologies, when he does use such, are simple, and perspicuous in construction, whereas this is involved, and rhetorical. This objection however is completely answered by the supposition (Fritz.) that the doxology was the effusion of the fervent mind of the Apostle on taking a general survey of the Epistle. We find in its diction striking similarities to that of the pastoral Epistles :—a phe- nomenon occurring in several places where Paul writes in a fervid and impassioned manner,—also where he writes with his own hand ;—the inferences from which I have treated in the Prolegg. to those for To κηρνγμα, κυριου &}(txt X-corr?), Epistles (vol. iii. Prolegg. ch. vii. § 1. 30—33). That the doxology is made up of unusual expressions taken from Paul’s other writings, that it is diffieult and in- volved, are facts, which if rightly argued from, would substantiate, not its interpo- lation, but its genuineness: seeing that an interpolator would have taken care to con- form it to the character of the Epistle in which it stands, and to have left in it no irregularity which would bring it into question. The construction is exveed- ingly difficult. Viewed superficially, it presents only another instance added to many in which the Apostle begins a sentence with one construction, pro- ceeds onward through various dependent clauses till he loses sight of the original form, and ends with a construction pre- supposing another kind of beginning. And such no doubt it is: but itis not easy to say what he had in his mind when com- mencing the sentence. Certainly, ᾧ 7 δόξα εἰς τ. αἰῶνας forbids us from supposing that δόξα was intended to follow the da- tives,—for thus this latter clause would be merely a repetition. We might imagine that he had ended the sentence as if it had begun 6 δὲ δυνάμενος, κιτ.λ. and expressed a wish that He who was able to confirm them, might confirm them: but this is prevented by its being evident, from the μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ, that the datives are still in his mind. This latter fact will guide us to the solution. The dative form is still in his mind, but not the reference in which he had used it. Hence, when the sentence would naturally have concluded (as it ac- tually does in B: see digest) μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, ἣ δόξα εἰς τ. ai@vas,—a break is made, as if the sense were complete at χριστοῦ, and the relative @ refers. back to the subject of the sen- 472 ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ͂Σ. XVIiI-2G ’ ‘\ - »" ~ ’ . Facts xvii2, Ψερωθέντος δὲ νῦν διά τε ‘ γραφῶν ὃ προφητικῶν Kat ὃ ἐπι- ch. 1. 2 reff. Ἢ “ : / Ἢ “- ν ΄ ᾽ ΕἾ Pet νι 19. χαγὴν τοῦ ' αἰωνίου ᾿ θεοῦ * εἰς * ὑπακοὴν " πίστεως εἰς onlv τ. . Z > A bors 6, πάντα ta ἔθνη Ἰγνωρισθέντος, 27 ™ μόνῳ ™ σοφῷ ™ θεῷ, vili.8. i Tum. A a , \ JA mitt. πδιὰ Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ “ο δόξα Peis τοὺς αἰῶνας. 3. u. 15 “ only τ. P. edie Wisd. xiv. 16, 27). there only. ΠΡΟΣ POMAIOTS. IY Gor. xii 3 reff πὶ here only. (1 Tim. i.17. Jude 25.) n see ch. ii. 16. och. xi. 36 reff. p ch. i. 25 reff. Ϊ 26. om τε D vulg (syrr [eth]) arm Chr, Orig-int, Hil, [Ambrst]. aft mpognt. add και τῆς emipaveras(adventum) Tov Kupiov nuwy ino. χριστου Orig,| not int, | mss-in-Jer. 27. θεω bef codw D. χριστ. bef ino. B, [for w, avrw P(here) arm (here) Chr-2-mss:] om B [F-lat] Syr Orig-int,. ve aft awyvas add των awywy ADPR vulg [and F-lat] Syr copt ath arm Damasc [Orig-int. Hil, Ambrst | (but not AP arm xiv. 23), om αμην 49. 63 am [Orig-int,.—add ver 24(see above) P 17. 80 Syr zth-pl arm Ambrst. | SUBSCRIPTION : rec mp. p. eypady απὸ κορινθου, with B? D-corr P(prefixing παυλου ἐπιστολη) rel syrr[prefg ἐτελεσθη] copt [Euthal-ms(aft ρωμ. ins emor.)], adding δια Φοιβης τῆς διακονου THS εν κεγχρεαις εκκλήσιας, With rel copt (but ἃ k [Kuthal-ms] pref; abdefk m ἢ 47 [syrr Euthal-ms} om της ev keyxp. exkA.; m Om Tp. ρω.): Tov ay. K. πανευφημου αποστολου παυλοὺ επισ. TP. p. Eypapn amo κορινθου δια φοιβης της διακονου L: om Fe g 117: εγραφὴ απο κορινθου Ο: eyp. δια φοιβης απὸ κορ. h: txt AB'CD! G(adding ἐτελέσθη) &. tence preceding, thus imagined complete, —viz. to 6 δυνάμενος---μόνος σοφὸς θεός. The analogy of the similar passage Acts xx. 32 would tempt us to supply with the datives παρατίθεμαι ὑμᾶς, or the like, as suggested by Olsh. ;—but as De W. re- marks, the form of a doxology is too evi- dent to allow of this. After all, perhaps, the datives may be understood as convey- ing a general ascription of praise for the mercies of Redemption detailed in the Epistle, and then ᾧ ἡ δ. as superadded, 4. d., To Him who is able &..... be all the praise: to whom be glory for ever. 26. κατά, in reference to, i.e. ‘in subordination to,’ and according to the requirements of. κήρυγμα ᾿Ιησοῦ xp. ean hardly mean, as De W. and Meyer, ‘the preaching which Jesus Christ hath accomplished by me’ (ch. xv. 18),—nor again as Chrys., ὃ αὐτὸς ἐκήρυξεν,---Ὀπῖ the preaching of Christ, i.e. making known of Christ, as the verb is used 1 Cor. i. 23; xv. 12 al. fr. So Calv., and most Commentators. κατὰ ἀποκ.} This second κατά is best taken, not as co-ordi- nate to the former one, and following στη- ρίξαι, nor as belonging to δυναμένῳ, which would be an unusual limitation of the divine Power,—but as subordinate to «7- puyua,—the preaching of Jesus Christ ac- cording to, &c. The omission of τό before κατὰ amok. is no objection to this. pvot.| The mystery (see ch. xi. 25, note) of the gospel is often said to have been thus hidden from eternity in the counsels of God—see Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 26; 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i, 2;.1 Pet. i. 20; Rev. xii. 8. 26.] See ch. i. 2. The prophetic writings were the storehouse out of which the preachers of the gospel took their demonstrations that Jesus was the Christ: see Acts xviil. 28;—more especially, it is true, to the Jews, who however are here included among πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. κατ᾽ ἐπιταγ. may refer either to the pro- phetic writings being drawn up by the command of God,—or to the manifestation of the mystery by the preachers of the gospel thus taking place. The latter seems best to suit the sense. αἰωνίου refers back to xp. αἰωνίοις [the word should have been kept scrupulously the same in English, ABCDF ΓΡΊΝ ἃ bedet ghbkt mnotl7 [47] not as here and in Matt. xxii. 46 rendered . by two different English terms]. The first εἰς indicates the aim—in’ order to their becoming obedient to the faith :— the second, the local extent of the mani- festation. 21.) διὰ "Ino. xp. must by the requirements of the construction be applied to μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ, and not (as Aug. [and Εἰ. V.]) to δόξα, from which it is separated by the relative ¢. The quan- tity of intervening matter, especially the datives μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ, prevent it from being referred (as (ἔς, Theophyl.) to στηρίξαι. It must then be rendered to the only wise God through Jesus Christ, 1. 6. Him who is revealed to us by Christ as such. On the construction of ᾧ see above. It cannot without” great harsh- ness be referred to Christ, seeing that the words μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ resume the chief subject of the sentence, and to them the relative must apply. : ABCDF LPN ab edefg hkim no 17, 47 ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOYS A. 1 a a \ > , a 9 ah \ ae I. 1 Παῦλος [" κλητὸς] ἀπόστολος χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὃ διὰ « Βοιυ.11,6. ΄ A \ 7, - ᾽ , 9, A ¢ 3 / 2 Ki τ. θελήματος θεοῦ, καὶ Σωσθένης ὁ ἀδελφός, 3 τῇ " ἐκκλησίᾳ δεν κι ¢ θ ~a ae , d 2 a? A A ” > b Rom. xy. 32 TOU εου, “ ἡγιασμένοις “εν χρίστῳ Ἰησοῦ, TH οὔσῃ ἐν τοῦς : c Acts xx. 28. ch. x. 32. xi. 16, 22. xv.9. 2Cor.i.1. Gal. i. 13. 1 Thess. ii. 14. 2 Thess. i. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 5, 15. Kits ls d Rom, xv. 16 reff. TITLE. Steph ἡ προς τους κορινθιους ἐπιστολὴ πρωτη : elZ mavAov του αποστυλου ἢ προς κορινθιου em. mp., With rel: mp. kop. αρχεται a F(but G om a): του αγιου και πανευφημου αποστολου παυλου επιστολὴ Tp. Kup. πρωτη Li: mpos ko. a er. hn: mp. ko. ex. tp. k: παυ. ew. mp. kop. ἃ P: mp. kop. m: om D: txt A(appy: the title is nearly gone) BCX (10) 17. 47 [and D at top of pages}. Cuap. I. 1. om κλητος AD Cyr,[-p] (perhaps because it does not occur elsw in the openings of epp exc Romi. 1: but it may have been insd from there, so I have left it doub/ful): ins BCFLPR® rel [vulg fri syrr copt eth arm] Chr, Thdrtyexpr Thlexpr (Ecexpr Orig-int, Ambrst Aug Bede. rec ino. bef xp., with ALP rel [vulg-clem syrr copt eth arm Cyr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt ΤῊ] @e Orig-int, : txt BDF [m 17} am(with demid fuld tol [fri]) Chr, Hil[(Wetst) Ambrst Aug,(ed Bened) ].—av corrd to w &}, (C is defective in this and follg ver.) 2. rec tn ovon ev Kop. bef ἡγιασμ. ev x. τ... with AD?LPN rel [vulg am ἄς syrr copt zth arm]: txt B D!-3[and lat] F [fuld-corr]. Cuap. I. 1—8.] ADDRESS AND GREET- ING. 1.] It is doubtful whether κλητός is not spurious: see var. readd. The words διὰ θελ. θεοῦ point probably to the depreciation of Paul’s apostolic au- thority at Corinth. In Gal. i. 1 we have this much more strongly asserted. But they have a reference to Paul himself also: “ratio auctoritatis ad ecclesias: humilis et prompti animi, penes ipsum Paulum.” Bengel. Chrys., referring it to κλητός, says, ἐπειδὴ αὐτῷ ἔδοξεν, ἐκλήθημεν, οὐκ ἐπειδὴ ἄξιοι ἦμεν. Hom.i.p. 4. Σωσ- θένης can hardly be assumed to be identical with the ruler of the synagogue in Acts xviii. 17: see note there. He must have been some Christian well known to the church at Corinth. Thus Paul associates with bimself Silvanus and Timotheus in the Epistles to the Thessalonians; and Timo- theus in 2 Cor. Chrysostom attributes it to modesty : espe συντάττων ἑαυτῷ τὸν ἐλάττονα πολλῷ. Some have sup- posed Sosthenes to be the writer of the Epistle, sce Rom. xvi. 22. Possilly he “- "ἐν may have been one τῶν Χλόης (ver. 11) by whom the intelligence had been re- ceived, and the Apostle may have associa- ted him with himself as approving the ap- peal to apostolic authority. Perhaps some slight may have been put upon him by-the parties at Corinth, and for that reason Paul puts him forward. ὁ ἀδελφός, as 2 Cor. i. 1, of Timothy, our brother,—one of of ἀδελφοί. 2.1 The remarks of Calvin on τῇ ἐκκλ. τ. θεοῦ, «.7.A. are ad- mirable: ‘ Mirum forsan videri queat, cur eam hominum multitudinem vocet Eccle- siam Dei, in qua tot morbi invaluerant, ut Satan illic potius regnum occuparet quam Deus. Certum est autem, eum noluisse blandiri Corinthiis: loquitur enim ex Dei Spiritu, qui adulari non solet. Atqui inter tot inquinamenta qualis amplius eminet Ecclesiz facies ὃ Respondeo, . .. utcun- que multa vitia obrepissent, et variz corrup- | tele tam doctrine quam morum, extitisse tamen adhuc quedam vere Ecclesiz signa. Locus diligenter observandus, ne requira- mus in hoc mundo Ecclesiam omni ruga et 474 e Acts ix. 13 reff. f Acts xxiii. 15. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Phil. i. 1. g = Acts ii. 21 reff. h see Rom. xvi. 13 and ch. τόπῳ ἢ 1 = Phil. i. 3 al. om Ist nuwy A 77 109 fuld Orig,{not int,] Pel. αὐτῶν [τε] καὶ ἃ ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOTS A. I. Yr , »“" ς , \ cr a Κορίνθῳ, * κλητοῖς © ἁγίοις, ἴ σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς © ἐπικαλουμέ- Ν ᾽ lal / ς΄ a ’ cr -“ νοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ ἡμῶν. ὃ. Ἰχάρις ὑμῖν Kat‘ εἰρήνη \ “-“ \ ¥ cal ‘ ,’ al a ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Kal κυρίον ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ. 4 Κ ὐγαριστῶ τῷ * θεῷ * μου πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν; ἐπὶ TH χαρ ι YP ρι υμῶν Τῇ om χριστου A. om Te (A? ?)BDIFR! .7 [vulg Syr copt Euthal-ms Damase]: ins [A?]D?L PN rel [syr eth arm Chr, Thdrt Cyr-c, Phot-c, }. 4. om μου BN! wth: ins ACDFLP N-corr! rel [vulg syrr copt arm Orig-e,] macula carentem: aut protinus abdicemus hoe titulo quemvis ccetuin in quo non omnia votis nostris respondeant. Est enim hee periculosa tentatio, nullam Ecclesiain pu- tare ubi non appareat perfecta puritas. Nam quicunque hac occupatus fuerit, ne- cesse tandem erit, ut discessione ab omnibus aliis facta, solus sibi sanctus videatur in mundo, aut peculiarem sectam cum paucis hypocritis instituat. Quid ergo cause habuit Paulus, cur Ecclesiam Corinthi agnosceret ? nempe quia Evangelii doctri- nam, Baptismum, Ceenam Domini, quibus symbolis censeri debet Ecclesia, apud eos cernebat.” On τοῦ θεοῦ, Chrys. remarks, ov τοῦδε Kal τοῦδε, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Beov,—and similarly Theopbyl., taking the expression as addressed to the Corinthians to remind them of their position as a congregation belonging to Gop, and not to any head of a party. Perhaps this is too refined, the words ἡ ἐκκλ. τ. θεοῦ being so usual with St. Paul,—see reff. The harshuess of the position of ἡγιασμένοις ἐν xp. “Ino. is in favour of its being the original one :—hal- lowed (i.e. dedicated) to God in (in union with and by means of) Jesus Christ. ἢ cvayn—‘ which exists,’ ‘is found, at Corinth. ‘So ἐν ’Avriox. κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν, Acts xiii. 1. κλη- τοῖς ἁγίοις | See Rom. i. 7, note. σὺν πᾶσιν ;:.τ.λ.1 These words do not belong to the designations just preceding, = ‘as are all,’ &., but form part of the address of the Epistle, so that these πάντες of ἐπικαλ. are partakers with the Corin- thians in it. They form a weighty and precious addition,—made here doubtless to shew the Corinthians, that membership of God’s Holy Catholic Church consisted not in being planted, or presided over by Paul, Apollos, or Cephas (or their successors), but in calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church of England has adopted from this verse her solemn ex- planation of the term, in the ‘prayer for all sorts and conditions of men: “ More especially, we pray for the good estate of the Catholic Church; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life.” ἔπικαλ.] not ‘culling them- selves by’ (though in sense equivalent to this, for they who call upon Christ, call themselves by His Name): the phrase ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου was one adopted from the LXX, as in reff. ; the adjunct ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ xp. defines that Lord (Jehovah) on whom the Christians called, to be Jesus Christ,—and is a direct testimony to the divine worship ot Jesus Christ, as universal in the church. The ὄνομα ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (James ii. 7) is not to the point, the construction being different. ἐν παντὶ τόπ. avr. [τε] κ. Hp] In every place, both theirs (in their country, wherever that may be) and ours. This connexion is far better than to join aut. [re] «x. u. with κυρίῳ, thereby making the tirst ἡμῶν superfluous. αὐτῶν refers to the πάντες of ἐπικαλ., ἡμῶν to Paul, and Sosthenes, and those whom he is addressing. Eichhorn fancied τόπος to mean ‘a place of assembly: Hug, ‘a party’ or ‘ division: Beza, al., would limit the persons spoken of to Achaia: others, tc Corinth and Ephesus :— but the simple meaning and universal reference are far more agreeable to the spirit of the passage. I may as well once for all premise, that many of the German expositors have been constantly misled in their interpretations by what I believe to be a mistaken view of ver. 12, and the supposed Corinthian parties. See note there. 3.] See introductory note to the Epistle to the Romans. Olsh. re- marks, that εἰρήνη has peculiar weight here on account of the dissensions in the Corin- thian Church. 4. 9.) THANKSGIVING, AND EXPRES- SION OF HOPE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SPIRITUAL STAIE OF THE CORINTHIAN cHcrRcH. There was much in the Co- rinthian believers for which to be thank- ful, and on account of which to hope. These things he puts in the foreground, not only to encourage them, but (as Olsh.) to appeal to their better selves, ὁ---9, mn “ la) Lal An U e “ 3 aS a at χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ " δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν ἐν χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ m~ ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 475 Acts xi. 23 reff. \ / 3 Ta \ Ἔ 5 ὅτι ἐν παντὶ ° ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν Ῥ παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ " §OR ἴδ Ὁ » Ρ πάσῃ “ γνώσει, ὃ καθὼς τὸ e A 5 ἐβεβαιώθη ἐν ὑμῖν, μηδενὶ ἃ χαρίσματι, fal / ¢e “ Ἶ le) Le 8 A ‘ 8 / TOU ty ee oes oa oe eee βεβαιώσει ΄ lal ὑμᾶς ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ. r= 01.11.1. 2 Thess. i. 10. 14. Rom. iii. 23. Phil. iv. 12. v Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25. Gal. v. 5. x 2 Cor. i. 13 only. Heb. xi. 37 al. Joel ii. 31). ch. iii. 13. iv. 13. 2 Cor. i. 18. 3. v. 5. 2 Cor. i. 14. om Tov θεου A! 39. 87 Cyr,/ (ins,)-p]. ch. iii. 10. * μαρτύριον TOU χριστοῦ ecg ma i ud Se ee \ ς Ἂν al. ii Ἷ ὥςτε. ὑμᾶς μὴ ᾿ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν PPh. iit 2.8 Y ἀπεκὸὃε ομένους τὴν w ἀποκάλυψιν i. 8: James lv. 6. x ἢ ο 2 Cor. vi. 10. ix. 11 only. Gen. xiv. 23 * ἕως * τέλους Y ἀνεγκλήτους ἐν ay 2 ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ΒΡ seers reff. 9 ηγιστὸς ὁ θεὸς ὃ δι 1. Tim.11./6. ἜΠΗ. i..8. ῬΒΧειῖ. 1. Phil. iii. 20. Heb. ix. 28. μέχρι T., Heb. iii. 14. ἄχρι τ., Rev. ii. 26. i. 22. 1 Tim. iii. 10. Tit.i.6,7 only+. 3 Macc. v. 31. ellips., Matt. xii. 13. Eph. iv. 30. 1 Thess. v. 24. 2 Thess. iii. 3. 2 Tim. ii. 13 al. ͵ eS = iat xv. ou ἐκλή έτος 5 Rom. xv. 8 reff. t Luke xv. u = Rom. xi. 29. xii. 6 (ch. xii. 4) al. 1 Pet. iii. 20 only Te w = Rom. viii. 19 y Col. z= Actsi »" 20 com Phil, i. 6, 10. ii. 16. Xe b = Rom. i. & 2 Cor. 11]. 5. ev (1st) is written twice but corrd by X}. 6. for χριστου, θεου B!(but corrd, Tischdf) F n 46-7. 72. 109-20 lectt-8. 12 arm. 8. the ver is written twice by &'(corrd by X-corr!). nucpa(in diem fri), παρουσια DF Ambrst Cassiod, ; die adventus vulg Pel. χριστου B. 9. om ὁ ΟἹ, and to bring out the following contrast more plainly. 4. τ. θεῷ μου] so in reff. Rom. Phil. πάντοτε] expanded in Phil. i. 4 into πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει _ Mov. The 7 χάρις 7 δοθεῖσα = τὰ χα- ρίσματα τὰ δοθέντα (see below on ver. 7) —a metonymy which has passed so com- pletely into our common parlance, as to be almost lost sight of as such. ‘ Grace’ is pro- perly ἐν God: the gifts of grace in us, given by that grace. év | not, as Chrys., Theo- phyl., Zcum., for διά, [nor = ὃψ 85 E. V., ] but as usually in this connexion, in Christ, —i.e. to you as members of Christ. So also below. 5. ἐν παντί] general: particu- larized by ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ κ. πάσῃ γνώσει, in all teaching and all knowledge. λόγος (obj.), the truth preached. γνῶσις (subj.), the truth apprehended. They were rich in the preaching of the word, had among them able preachers, and rich in the apprehen- sion of the word, were themselves intelli- gent hearers. See 2 Cor. viii. 7, where to these are added πίστις, σπουδή, and ἀγάπη. 6. τὸ μαρτ. τ. χριστοῦ) the wit- ness concerning Christ delivered by me. καθώς, as indeed, ‘siquidem.’ éBeB., was confirmed, —took deep root, among you; i.e. ‘as was to have been expected, from the impression made among you by my preaching of Christ.’ This con- firmation was znternal, by faith and perma- nence in thetruth, not external, by miracles. 7.] So that ye are behind (others) in no gift of grace ;—not, lack no gift of grace, which would be genitive. χάρισμα here has its widest sense, of that which is the effect of xapes,—not meaning ‘spiritual gifts’ in the narrower sense, as in ch. xii. 4. for om for ews, αχρι DF. for δι, up D'[-gr] F[-gr]. This is plain from the whole strain of the passage, which dwells not on outward gifts, but on the inward graces of the Christian life. ἀπεκδεχ. | which is the greatest proof of maturity and richness of the spiritual life; implying the coexistence and co- operation of faith, whereby they believed the promise of Christ,—hope, whereby they looked on to its fulfilment, —and love, whereby that anticipation was lit up with earnest desire ;—compare πᾶ- σιν τοῖς ἤγαπηκόσιν THY ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ, 2 Tim. iv. 8. ἀπεκδ. K.7.A., is taken by Chrys.,—who understands χαρίσματα of miraculous powers,—as implying that be- sides them they needed patience to wait till the coming of Christ; and by Calv.,— “1460 addit expectantes revelationem, quo significat, non talem se affluentiam illis affingere in qua nihil desideretur; sed tantum que sufficiet usquedum ad perfec- tionem perventum fuerit.” But I much prefer taking ἀπεκδεχομένους as parallel with and giving the result of μὴ bor. K.7.A. 8. ὅς] viz. θεός, ver. 4, not Ἰησοῦς χριστός, in which case we should have ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ. The καί besides shews this. ἕως τέλ. ἀνεγκ.] i. 6. εἰς τὸ εἶναι Suas ἄνεγκ.; --- so ἀπεκατεστάθη ὑγιής, Matt. xii. 18. To the end, see reff.—i.e. to the συντέλεια τ. αἰῶνος, not merely ‘to the end of your lives.’ 9.1 See ref. 1 Thess. ; also Phil.i.6. The KOLV. TOU vi. avT., as Meyer well remarks, is the δόξα τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom. viii. 21; for they will be συγκληρονόμοι τοῦ χριστοῦ, and συνδοξασθέντες with Him,— see Rom. viii. 17,23; 2 Thess. ii.14. The mention of κοινωνία may perhaps bave been 476 ΤΕΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. iF » ο Ι fal ca ΩΣ al Ἢ] a a lal c2Cor. vil θητε εἰς “ κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ «τος / id al ὁ Rom. xii. 1 ape _ muatan ἢ μῶν: dats oe eer 10 4 Ἰ]ᾳρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί. ' διὰ τοῦ ἴ ὀνόματος ch. xvi. 12, τ ὦ 2 _ “ ὡς δ “y, q ad ξ 3, 16. τ e 15,16... , Τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ, iva τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε ἐν. δι, αι. 8. / \ \ 5 3 toa g ͵ = δε b Coin sal. πάντες καὶ μὴ ἢ ἐν ὑμῖν & σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ ὃ" κατηρ- f Acts iv. 30 a " A A . Ait \ a > ra le ’ ἢ Tlomevoe EV τῷ αὐτῷ ‘vol Kai ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ * γνώμῃ. ΘΟ ν / - / ς Ν a Sars. 11} ἐδηλώθη yap μοι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί μου, ὑπὸ ™ τῶν 18. ji. 25 a , 6 a“ ¢ ,ὔ Ν -“ (Mark ii-21!') Χλόης, ὅτι " ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσιν. 13 ο χέγω δὲ τοῦτο, only ας (μη, Tee Se Cries Ve Ἢ \ ͵ 4 ΡΠ x a= aN = , sai ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει ᾿Εγὼ μέν εἰμι αύλου, ἐγὼ δὲ ). 2 Οοσ. iii. 11. Gal. vi. l. Heb. xiii. 21. 1 Pet. v.10. Ezra iv. 13. i = Rom. i. 28. Eph. iv. 17. P. only, exc. Luke xxiv. 45. Rev. xiii. 18. xvii. 9. exc. Rev. xvii. 13, 17 [Dis]. 2 Macc. xiv. 20. ll. 2 Pet. i. lionly. Exod. vi. 3. 4. Tit. iii. 9. -wdes, here only. 11. xl. 5, 9 only. o = ch. x. 29. xiv. 8. ch. 111. 23 al. 10. [αδελφοι bef παρ. vu. (omg δε) C3 a 74. | xp. bef inc. D[-gr].—om του F(not G). k-= ch. vii. 25, 40. “2 Cor. viii. 10. m see Rom. xvi. 10, 11. sing., Rom. i. 29. xiii. 13. ch. ii. 3. Gal. iii. 17. see ch. vil. 29. xv. dU. P. or of P. (Acts xx.3) only, Ich. ili. 13. Col. i. 8. Heb. ix. 8. xii. 27. 1 Pet. 1. n plur., 2 Cor. xii. 20. 1 Tim. vi. Gal. v.20. Phil. i. 15 only+. Sir. xxviii. Ρ gen., Acts ix. 2. ino. xp. bef του κυρ. nu. DF.— 11. for μου, μοι B'(sic) : om Cl(appy) D-lat Ambrst. intended to prepare the way, as was before done in ver. 2, tor the reproof which is coming. Chrys. remarks respecting vv. 1—9, σὺ δὲ σκόπει πῶς αὐτοὺς TE ὀνό- ματι ἀεὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ προξηλοῖ. καὶ avOpa- που μὲν οὐδενός, οὔτε ἀποστόλου οὔτε δι- δασκάλου, συνεχῶς δὲ αὐτυῦ τοῦ ποθουμένου μέμνηται, καθάπερ ἀπὸ μέθης τινὸς τοὺς καρηβαροῦντας ἀπενεγκεῖν παρασκευάζων. οὐδαμοῦ γὰρ ἐν ἑτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῇ οὕτω συν- εχῶς κεῖται τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ χριστοῦ" ἐνταῦθα μέντοι ἐν ὀλίγοις στίχοις πολλάκις, καὶ διὰ τούτου σχεδὸν τὸ πᾶν ὑφαίνει προοίμιυν. Hom. ii. p. 10. 10—IV. 21.] REPROOF OF THE PARTY- DIVISIONS AMONG THEM: BY OCCASION OF WHICH, THE APOSTLE EXPLAINS AND DEFENDS HIS OWN METHOD OF PREACH- ING ONLY CHRIST TO THEM. 10. | δέ introduces the contrast to the thankful assurance just expressed. διὰ τ. dv., as διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom. xii. 1: “as the bond of union, and as the most holy name by which they could be adjured ” Stanley. ἵνα (reff.) not only introduces the result of the fulfilment of the exhorta- tion, but includes its import. τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε -- contrast to λέγει ἐγὼ μὲν... ἐγὼ δὲ... ἐγὼ δὲ... ἐγὼ δέ of ver. 12,—but further implying the having the same sen- timents on the subjects which divided them : see Phil. ii. 2. ἦτε δέ] δέ here im- plies but rather, as in Thue. ii. 98, ἀπεγίγ- VETO μὲν αὐτῷ οὐδὲν TOD στρατοῦ, .. . Mpus- eylyvero δέ. Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 171, gives many other examples. καταρ- τίζω is the exact word for the healing or repairing of the breaches made by the oxlouara,—perfectly united. So Herod. v. 28, ἡ MiAntos.... ἐπὶ δύο γενεὰς ἀν- δρῶν νοσήσασα ἐς τὰ μάλιστα στάσει, μέχρι οὗ μιν Πάριοι κατήρτισαν. νοΐ (rett.), disposition, -- γνώμη (do.), opinion. 11.) We cannot till up τῶν Χλόης, not knowing whether they were sons, or servants, or other members of her family. Nor can we say whether Chloe was (Theo- phyl., al.) an inkabitant of Corinth, or some Christian woman (Estius) known to the Corinthians elsewhere, or (Michaelis, Meyer) an Ephesian, having friends who had been in Corinth. 12.) λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ὅτι,-- οί, ‘J say this because, — but (sce reff.) I mean this, that... exact. ty λέγ. The meaning is clear, but the form of expression not strictly accurate, the ἕκαστος being a different per- son in each case. Accurately expressed it would run thus, ὅτι πάντες τοιοῦτό τι λέγετε, ἐγώ εἰμι Π., ἐγὼ "AmoA., ἐγὼ Κηφ., ἐγὼ χριστοῦ,---οΟΥ as De W., ὅτι πάντες A., 6 μέν, ἔγώ εἶμι. . .. ὃ δέ, ἐγὼ κ.τ.λ.---- Respecting the matter of fact to which the verse alludes, I have given references in the Prolegg. § ii. 10, to the principal theories of the German critics, and will only here restate the conclusions which I have there (ib. parr. 5—9) endeavoured to substan- tiate: (1) that these designations are not used as pointing to actual parties formed and subsisting among the Corinthians, but (2) as representing the SPIRIT WITH WHICH THEY CONTENDED against one another, being the sayings of individuals, and not of parties (ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει) : α. ἃ. ‘You are all in the habit of alleging against one another, some your special attachment to Paul, some to Apollos, some to Cephas, others to no mere human teacher, but barely to Christ, to the exclusion of us his Apostles.’ (8) That these say- ings, While they are not to be made the. Rom. ABCDF LPxrab- cdefg hkim nol7, 47 10---15. ᾿Απολλώ, eyo δὲ Κηφᾶ, ἐγὼ δὲ χριστοῦ. ὁ χριστός ; μὴ [ἰαῦλος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ἢ 13. for ὑπερ, περι BD! : basis of any hypothesis respecting defi- nite parties at Corinth, do nevertie- less hint at matters of fact, and are not merely ‘exempli gratia: and (4) that this view of the verse, which was taken by Chrys., Theodoret, Theophylact, Calv., is borne out, and indeed necessitated, by ch. iv. 6 (see there). ἐγὼ... Παύλου] This profession, of being guided especially by the words and acts of Paul, would pro- bably belong to those who were the first fruits of, or directly converted under, his ministry. Such persons would contend for his apostolic authority, and maintain doc- trinally his teaching, so far being right ; but, as usual with partisans, would magnify into importance practices and sayings of his which were in themselves indifferent, and forget that theirs was a service of per- fect freedom under one Master, even Christ. With these he does not deal doctrinal/y in the Epistle, as there was no need for it: but involves them in the same censure as the rest, and shews them in ch. ii., iil., iv. that he had no such purpose of gaining personal honour among them, but only of building them up in Christ. ἐγὼ Απολλώ] Apollos (Acts xviii. 24 ff.) had come to Corinth after the departure of Paul, and being eloquent, might attract some, to whom the bodily presence of Paul seemed weak and his speech contemptible. It would certainly appear that some occa- sion had been taken by this difference, to set too high a value on external and rhe- torical form of putting forth the gospel of Christ. This the Apostle seems to be blaming (in part) in the conclusion of this, and the next chapter. And from ch. xvi. 12, it would seem likely that Apollos himself had been aware of the abuse of his manner of teaching which had taken place, and was unwilling, by repeating his visit just then, to sanction or increase it. ἐγὼ Κηφα) All we can say in possible explanation of this, is, that as Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision,—as we know from Gal. ii. 11 ff. that his course of action on one occasion was reprehended by Paul, and as that course of action no doubt had influence and found followers, it is very conceivable that some of those who in Corinth lightly esteemed Paul, might take advantage of this honoured name, and cite against the Christian liberty taught by their own spiritual founder, the stricter practice of Peter. If ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. with these persons. 477 134 ere a 5, Matt aii Γ εἰς τὸ a reff.) 3 Kings xvi. 21, r = Acts viii. 16 reff. txt ACD23FL(P]X rel. so, these persons would be mainly found amoung the Jewish converts or J udaizers ; and the matters treated in ch. vii.— xi. 1, may have been subjects of doubt mainly ἐγὼ δὲ χριστοῦ] A rendering has been proposed (Estius, al.) which need only be mentioned to be re- jected: viz. that Paul having mentioned the three parties, then breaks of, and adds, in his own person, ἐγὼ δὲ (ΠαῦλοΞ), χρισ- τοῦ (εἶμι) [not of any of these preceding ]. Beza represents this as Chrysostom’s view, but it is not: οὐ τοῦτο ἐνεκάλει, ὅτι τὸν χριστὸν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπεφήμιζον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὴ πάντες μόνον. οἶμαι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ οἴκοθεν αὐτὸ προςτεθεικέναι βουλόμενον βαρύτερον τὸ ἔγκλημα ποιῆσαι, καὶ δεῖξαι οὕτω καὶ τὸν χριστὸν εἰς μέρος δοθέντα ἕν, εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτως ἐποίουν τοῦτο éxeivor:—(Hom. iii. Ρ. 16 f.):—meaning by οἴκοθεν, not, as his own sentiment, but of his own inven- tion, to shew them the inconsistency of their conduct. ‘The words seem to apply to those who makea merit of not being attached to any human teacher,—who therefore slighted the apostleship of Paul. To them frequent allusion seems to be made in this and in the second Epistle, and more especially in 2 Cor. x. 7—11. For a more detailed discussion of the whole subject, see Prolegg. as above, and Dr. Davidson’s Introd. to the N. T. ii. 222 ff. 13.] Some (Lachmann has so printed it) take μεμέρισται ὃ xp. as an assertion,—‘ Christ has been divided (by you), —or, as Chrys. mentions, διενείματο πρὸς ἀνθρώπους“ kK. ἐμερίσατο τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. But it is far better to take it, as commonly, interrogatively : Is Christ (the Person of Christ, as the centre and bond of Christian unity—not, the Gospel of Christ (Grot., al.),—nor the Church of Christ (Estius, Olsh.) : nor the power of Christ (Theodo- ret), i.e. his right over all) divided (not in the primary sense (Meyer, ed. 1), against Himself, as Mark iii. 24, 25, where we have ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτήν, but ‘into various parts, one under one leader, another under an- other,— which in fact would amount, after all, to a division against Himself)? The question applies to all addressed, not to the ἐγὼ χριστοῦ only, as Meyer, ed. 1. In that case μεμέρισται ὃ xp. would mean ‘ Has Christ become the property of one part only ?’ as indeed Dr. Burton renders it. Meyer urges aguinst the interroga- tive rendering, that the questions begin s ver. 4, ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 1 ὄνομα ἸΤαύλου ' ἐβαπτίσθητε ; 14% εὐχαριστῶ τῷ 5 θεῷ ὅτι as a » , fas / οὐδένα ὑμῶν εβάπτισα, εἰ μὴ Κρίσπον καὶ Vaiov, iva t ch. iv. 2. 2 Cor. xili. 11. 1 Thess. iv. 1. ih χε xix.2 reff. » sy)? vconstr., Acts τίνα ἄλλον ἐβαάπτισα. xxvi. 17 reff. w absol., Rom. xy. 20 reff. 14. om τω θεω BR! 672 [Chr-comm, Damasc-comm]. / v “ τ by \ 3 Ν yv re / θ μὴ τις εἴπη ὅτι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα * ἐβαπτίσθητε. \ A ‘ Ss πτισα δὲ Kal τὸν Στεφανᾷ οἶκον' ᾿ἱ λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα ὃ εἴ 16 ἐβά- 17 > \ v2 t “4 \ ‘ov yap " ἀπεστεῖίλεν μὲ χριστὸς / / βαπτίζειν, ἀλλὰ “ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι: οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, add μου Ad σ᾽ 17 vulg- sixt(with demid fuld harl?) Syr syr-w-ob copt arm Thdrt, Orig-int, Pel Sedul Bede. πρισκον NX}, 15. rec (for εβαπτισθητε) εβαπτισα, with C'7DFLP rel fri Syr [syr-txt] goth Thdrt Tert,: txt ΑΒΟΙΝ a m 17 vulg syr-mg coptt arm Chr, Damasec Ambr-mss Pel Primas Bede. 16. for εβαπτισα, βεβαπτικα D' [twice] F[1st]. αλλον F fuld [ D-lat]. 17. for απεστειλεν, ameota(...) A: απεσταλκε 6. om ACDLPX rel [Orig-c,}] Chr, Thl Cc. σασθαι B: txt ADFLPR rel. (Ὁ uncert.) immediately after, with μή. But we may fairly set against this argument, that the μή introduces a new form of interrogation respecting a new individual, viz. Paul: and that it was natural, for solemnity’s sake, to express the other question differently. In μεμέρισται ὃ χριστός, the Majesty of Christ’s Person is set against the unworthy insinuation conveyed by peuepiotai,—in μὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ du.,—the meanness of the individual, Paul, is set against the triumph of divine Love implied in ἐστ. in. ὑμῶν. Two such contrasts could hardly but be differently expressed. μὴ Π. ἐστ. κτ.λ.} Surely Paul was ποῦ crucified for you? By repudi- ating all possibility of himself being the Head and ἐπώνυμος of their church, he does so ἃ fortiori for Cephas and Apollos : for he founded the Church at Corinth. On eis τὸ ὄν. ἐβαπτ. see Matt. xxviii. 19. 14.) Olsh. characterizes it as surprising that Paul should not have referred to the import of baptism itself as a reason to substantiate his argument. He does not this, but tacitly assumes, between ver. 13 and 14, the probability that his having bap- tized any considerable number among the Corinthians would naturally have led to the abuse against which he is arguing. εὐχ. τ. 8.] “17 am (now) thankful to God, who so ordered it that I did not, &e. Crispus, the former ruler of the synagogue, Acts xviii. 8. Gaius, afterwards the host of the Apostle, and of the church, Rom. xvi. 23. 15.] ἵνα represents the purpose, not of the Apostle’s conduct at the time, but of the divine ordering of things: ‘God so arranged it, that none might say,’ ἄσ. 16.| He subsequently recollects having baptized Stephanas and his family (see ch. xvi. 15, 17),—perhaps from infor- mation derived from Stephanas himself, ins To bef λοιπὸν F. om ins o bef xpioros BF Thdrt: ί(αλλα, so A(appy) BDR.) ευαγγελι- who was with him:—and he leaves an opening for any others whom he may pos- ABCDF LPrab edefg hklm nolj7, 47 sibly have baptized and have forgotten it. . The last clause is important as against those who maintain the absolute omni- science of the inspired writers on every topic which they handle. 17.) This verse forms the transition to the descrip- tion of his preaching among them. His mission was not to baptize :—a trace al- ready, of the separation of the offices of baptizing and preaching. ἄνθρωπον μὲν γὰρ κατηχούμενον λαβόντας καὶ πεπεισ- μένον βαπτίσαι, παντὸς οὑτινοΞςοῦν ἐστιν" ἢ γὰρ προαίρεσις τοῦ mposidvros λοιπὸν ἐργάζεται τὸ πᾶν, καὶ ἣ τοῦ θεοῦ xapis- ὅταν δὲ ἀπίστους δέῃ κατηχῆσαι, πολλοῦ δεῖ πόνου, πολλῆς τῆς σοφίας" τότε δὲ καὶ τὸ κινδυνεύειν προφῆν. Chrys. Hom. iii. p. 18. [Ὁ is evident that this is said in no derogation of Baptism, for he did on occasion baptize,—and it would be im- possible that he should speak lightly of the ordinance to which he appeals (Roin. vi. 3) as the seal of our union with Christ. οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου] It seems evident from this apology, and other hints in the two Epistles, e. g. 2 Cor. x. 10, that the plainness and simplicity of Paul’s speech had been one cause among the Corinthians of alienation from him. Perhaps, as hinted above, the eloquence of Apollos was ex- tolled to Paul’s disadvantage. év god. | in (as the element in which: better than ‘ with’) wisdom of speech (i. 6. the speculations of philosophy: that these are meant, and not mere eloquence or rhetorical form, appears by what follows, which treats of the subject,and not merely of the manner of the preaching) in order that the Cross of Christ (the great central point of his preaching ; exhibiting man’s guilt and God’s love in their highest degrees and 14—21. IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 479 iva μὴ *Kevw0 ὁ ἡ σταυρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ. 15 ὁ 7 λόγος x= Rom.iv. ren. eral. ᾿ς a ec Lal y } -“ - ~ \ ab > ~~ , c ω ί y Ξ yap o τοῦ Yatavpev Tos μὲν * ἀπολλυμένοις © μωρία ? τι Ἵ κα; Phil. iii. 18. 3 , A δὲ bd , con € § ΄ θ rag 18 €OTLY, τοις ε OWCOMEVOLS uv VYALLLS Εεου EOTLD. z= Acts xiii. ᾽ μ 19 γέγραπται γὰρ ᾿᾿Απολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν, τὴν δ σύνεσιν τῶν ὃ" συνετῶν ' ἀθετήσω. K ποῦ | γραμματεύς ; * ποῦ συνζητητὴς τοῦ " αἰῶνος " τού- του; οὐχὶ °euwpavey ὁ θεὸς τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ κόσμου ; 91 Ρ ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἸΙΠσοφίᾳ τοῦ «θεοῦ οὐκ "ἔγνω ὁ only+. Sir. xx. 31. xli. 15 only. Core δ Πα hy iii. 4. Col. i. 9. ii. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 7 only. Prov. 11. 2. i = Mark vii. 9. Luke x.16. John xii. 48. Gal. ii. 21 αἱ. Isa. xlviii. 8. 10. Rom. i. 16. ver. 24. 7only. Prov. xvi. 21. k = Rom. iii. 27. Isa. xxxiii. 18. m here only +. (-τεῖν, Acts vi. 9. ἴχ. 298. «τησις, Acts xv. 7.) Isa, xix. 11. o = Rom. i. 22 (reff.) only. ili r Rom, i. 21. 33. Eph. ii. 10. 18. om yap Ρ b!. Gal tve9: om 2nd 6 B a! Cyr-jer,. Σὰν ΒΝ ἴα ἃ = Rom. ii. 12, και 2 Cor. ii. 15. iv.3. 2 Thess. ii. 10. (1 Pet. i. 7.) . Lev. xxill. 30, Ὁ dat., ch. il. 14. viii. 6. 20 Κα ποῦ σοφός ; ix:.2 ς« c vv. 21, 23. ch. ii. 14, iii. 19 e Acts viii Luke ii. 41. Eph. Luke x. 21. Acts xiii. d pres., ch. xv. 2 reff. g Mark xii. 23. h Matt. xi. 25. 1 = Matt. xiii. 52. Epp., here only. Ezra vii. 6. n Rom. xii. 2 reff. Acts xv. 24 reff. q ver. 24. Rom. xi. 1 John iv. 6,7,8. (Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.] 34.) owpevois(sic) &. om nuw F am? fuld! fri D-lat G-lat Iren-int, Tert Cypr, Hil, Ambrst Cassiod: id est nobis vulg Pel Sedul Bede. 19. om yap D![-gr(appy, Treg) ] k [Orig-c, ]. 20. ree aft τ. Koou. ins τουτου (fo correspond with tov at. τουτου above), with C3D3FLN? rel [latt syrr copt goth arm-mss] Clem, Orig, Chr, Thdrt Tert, : om ABC! D![-gr] PX! a 17 [spec arm-ed Euthal-ms] Clem, Cyr[-p,} Did, Damase Thi Orig-int, Tert,. 21. om yap F 3. 108-77 arm. closest connexion) might not be deprived of its effect. This would come to pass rather by philosophical speculations than by eloquence. 18.] For (explanation of the foregoing clause,—and that. assuming the mutual exclusiveness of the preaching of the Cross and wisdom of speech, and the identity of of ἀπολλύμενοι with the lovers of σοφία λόγου : q. ἃ. ‘wisdom of speech would nullify the Cross of Christ: for the doctrine of the Cross is to the lovers of that wisdom, folly.’ The reasoning is elliptical and involved, and is further complicated by the emphatic position of τοῖς ἀπολλ. and τοῖς ow(.) the [preaching (speech, or] doctrine “there is a word, an eloquence, which is most powerful, the eloquence of the Cross : referring to οὐφία λόγου." Stanley) of the Cross is to the perishing (those who are through unbelief on the way to everlasting perdition) folly: but to us who are being saved (Billroth (in Olsh.) remarks that τ. ow(. nu. is a gentler expression than ἡμῖν τ. cw. would be: the latter would put the ju. into strong emphasis, and exclude the opponents in a more marked manner. ot σωζόμενοι are those in the way of sal- vation :—who by faith have laid hold on Christ and are by Him being saved, see reff.) it is the power (see ref. Rom. and note. Hardly, as Meyer,—a medium of divine Power,—etwaé, wodurd) Gott fraftig wirft: rather, the perfection of God’s Power—the Power itself, in its noblest manifestation) of God. 19.] For (con- tinuation of reason for οὐκ ἐν copia λόγου: -ἔργον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλαι... because it was prophesied that such wis- dom should be brought to nought by God) it is written, &c. The citation is after the LXX, with the exception of ἀθετήσω for κρύψω. The Heb. is ‘the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the prudence of the prudent shall disappear.’ (Lowth.) But Calv. says most truly, ‘ Perit sapientia, sed Domino destruente: sapientia evanes- cit, sed inducta a Domino et deleta.’ 20.1 See ref. The question implies disap- pearance and exclusion. σοφός, the wise, generally: ypopp., the Jewish scribe [interpreter of the law],—ovwv- {nr., the Greek disputer [arguer ] (reff.). Tov αἰῶν. τ. is best taken with the whole three,—of this present (ungodly) world. ἐμώρανεν μωρὰν ἔδειξεν οὖσαν πρὸς τὴν τῆς πίστεως κατάληψιν, Chrys. 21.] For (explanation of ἐμώρανεν) when (not temporal, but illative = ‘since, ‘seeing that,—so Plato, Gorg. p. 454, ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ov μόνη ἀπεργάζεται τοῦτο Td ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 259) in the wisdom of God (as part of the wise arrangement of God. De W., Meyer, al., render it ‘ by the revelation of the wisdom of God,’ which was made to the Gentiles, as Rom. i., by creation, and to the Jews by the law,—thus connecting ἐν with ἔγνω, and making τῇ cog. τ. θ. the medium of know- ledge :—Chrys. takes it for the wisdom manifest in His works only: τί ἐστιν, ἐν τ. cop. τ. θ.; TH διὰ τῶν ἔργων φαινομένῃ, δι ὧν ἠθέλησε γνωρισθῆναι. But 1 very 4830 ΠΡΟΣ. ΚΟΡΙΝΘΊΟΥΣ A. i , »“ , , e som. xv.28 κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν * θεόν, " εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ reff. Ξ A ΄ a \ tver 18 4, τῆς ᾿μωρίας τοῦ “ κηρύγματος σῶσαι TOUS πιστεύοντας" reff. 22 P ἐπειδὴ καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ¥ σημεῖα “ αἰτοῦσιν καὶ “EXAnves “- « e a“ Ν "s Ἀ ᾽ σοφίαν * ζητοῦσιν, 35 ἡμεῖς δὲ Υ κηρύσσομεν χριστὸν ἐσταυ- y = Matt. xvi. L. Isa. vii. 11 al. w Acts xvi. 29 \ 7 y \ ᾿ ref; Tam. ρωμένον, ᾿Ιουδαίοις μὲν * σκάνδαλον, ἔθνεσιν δὲ * μωρίαν, =" Matt. xii. a Ν τ , "48, ἵν Prov. 24 ἃ αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς ἢ κλητοῖς, Ιουδαίοις τε καὶ “EAXnow, xiv. Ὁ. iii Led “d ‘ a ! On @ \ \ yActsvili5 ovgerov θεοῦ ° δύναμιν καὶ θεοῦ ἃ σοφίαν" * ὅτι " TO f wwpov 5 = Romexiv.” > 13 reff. a see ch. v. 13. Rom. viii. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 17. viii. 8. b ver. lal. c ver. 18. d ver. 21. i e neut., f Matt. vii. 26. ch. iii. 18. iv. 10 al. Deut. xxxii.6. (-pta, ver. 18.) nvdox. C m [Ath,] Chr, Damase, for o Geos, Tw θεω F. πιστευσαντας ἴ,. 22. for επειδη και, επει F: om καὶ fuld [harl'] Syr [(Clem,) Tert, Cypr, Hil, Ambrst }. rec onuciov (Meyer and De W think σημεια a corrn, because only the sing could present any difficulty: but Tischdf (Ed. 7 (and 8)) refers to such passages as Matt xii. 39, xvi. 4 al as having suggested the sing, which considg the immense weight of manuscript authority, seems, I own, more likely), with L rel arm {Euthal-ms Cyr- νι] Thi-txt Ee-txt: txt ABCDFPR 17 latt syrr copt goth [eth-pl] Clem, [Sevrn-c, Chr, Thdrt Damase] Mcion-t Cypr, Hil. emi(ntovo A. 23. rec (for εθνεσιν) ελλησιν (to suit precedg and follg), with C3D3 rel [Syr(appy) ] Clem, Orig-ms, Eus, [Euthal-ns Chr, Thdrt]: txt ABC'D!F LPR m 17 latt syr copt goth wth arm Orig,[-int,] Eus, Ath {Cyr-jer, Damasc] Cypr, Hil; [Ambrst]. 24. [for avrois, avtos C(sic, Tischdf). | much doubt the legitimacy of this absolute objective use of copia, as = those things by which the σοφία is manifested. I can- not see with Olsh. why the interpretation given above is ‘ganz unpaulint{d “ἢ it is merely an expansion οἵ ἐμώρανεν,---πὰ agrees much better with Paul’s use of the words ἡ σοφία τ. θεοῦ in reff. and in ch. ii. 7) the world (Jew and Gentile, see next verse) by its wisdom (as a means of attaining knowledge: or, but I prefer the other, “through the wisdom (of God) which I have just mentioned :” so Stanley) knew not (could not find out) God, God saw fit by the foolishness of preaching (lit., ‘of the proclamation : gen. of appo- sition,—by that preaching which is reputed folly by the world) to save believers. Rom. i. 16 throws light on this last expression as connected with δύναμις θεοῦ in our ver. 18, and with what follows here. There the two are joined: δύναμις yap θεοῦ ἐστιν (τὸ evay. τ. xp.) εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, ᾿Ιουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον κ. ἙΕλληνι. 22.} ἐπειδή, not as in ver. 21, but = ‘siquidem,’ and explains τ. μωρίας τ. κηρ. καὶ--καί see Mark ix. 13, unite (De W.) things resembling each other in this particular, but else unlike. Jews and Gentiles both made false requirements, but of different kinds. σημεῖα αἰτ. see Matt. xii. 38, xvi. 1; Luke xi. 16; John ii. 18, vi. 30. The correction σημεῖον has probably been made from remembering the σημεῖον of these passages. The sign required was not, as I have observed on Matt. xii. 38, & mere miracle, but some token from om τοις F. om τε Fk, Heaven, substantiating the word preactied. 23. | Still the expansion of 7 uwp. τ. knpvy. Now, σκάνδ. as regards the Jews, and μωρία as regards the Gentiles, correspond to the general term μωρία before. often found in clauses following the temporal conjunctions ἐπεί, ἕως, ὄφρα, Kc., in Homer, and ὅς, ὡς, ὥςπερ, εἰ, &e., in Attie writers: 6. g. Od. & 178, τὸν ἐπεὶ θρέψαν θεοί, ἔρνεϊ toov ..., Tod δέ τις ἀθανάτων βλάψε φρένας ἔνδον ἐΐσας.--- and Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 12, ὥςπερ οἱ ὅπλῖ- ται, οὕτω δὲ Kal of πελτασταὶ K. of τοξοταί. See many other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 184 f. It serves to give a slight prominence to the consequent clause, as compared with the antecedent one. 24.) This verse plainly is a con- tinuation of the opposition to ver. 22 be- fore begun, but itself springs by way of opposition out of Ἰουδ. μὲν σκάνδ,, ἔθν. δὲ μωρίαν, ---ὐα carries the thought back to vv. 18 and 21. αὐτοῖς δὲ τ. κλητοῖς | Not, ‘but to the elect themselves, which would be either αὐτοῖς δὲ κλητοῖς, Or τοῖς δὲ κλητοῖς αὐτοῖς ;—but to these, viz. the elect,—the αὐτοῖς serving to identify them with the σωζόμενοι of ver. 18. There it was }piv,—here αὐτοῖς, because by the mention of preaching joined with ἡμεῖς, he has now separated off the hearers. δύναμιν, as fulfilling the requirement of the seekers after a sign :— σοφίαν,--ο those who sought wisdom. The repeti- tion of χριστόν gives solemnity, at the same time that it concentrates the δύναμις and σοφία in the Person of Christ; q. d. ABCDF ΡΝ ἃ Ὁ edefg hkl τὰ nol7, 47 The δέ after ἡμεῖς is that so_ ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 48] aA »“ / “- g > , > 7 Ν e Ν τοῦ θεοῦ σοφώτερον τῶν ὅ ἀνθρώπων ἐστίν, καὶ © ΤΟ zconstr., h ’ \ Lal θ aC i 2 la lal ᾽ / 5 / ἀσθενὲς τοῦ θεοῦ ‘icyupoTrepoy τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐστίν. ΄ \ a ς lal + 26 Κ βλέπετε yap τὴν ᾿ἰ κλῆσιν ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, OTL οὐ πολ- \ , hot σοφοὶ ™ κατὰ ™ σάρκα, ov πολλοὶ " δυνατοί, οὐ πολ- 2 ) A 2 \ “ Ul , Aol ο εὐγενεῖς, 27 ἀλλὰ τὰ fuwpa τοῦ κόσμου » ἐξελέξατο « \ ¢/ / \ ΄ Ν A h » a al Ps ὁ θεὸς ἵνα 4 καταισχύνῃ τοὺς σοφούς, καὶ TA" ἀσθενῆ τοῦ %. Inde. ΄ ΕῚ 7 e θ Ν ‘sf q / \ r > / κόσμου 9 ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς wa “ καταισχύνῃ τὰ * ἰσχυρά, 98 \ Seca a a , \ Nat) θ ’ p > καὶ Ta " ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ Ta * ἐξουθενημένα Ὁ ἐξ- n Acts xxv. 5. p Acts i. 2, 24 al. Matt. xii. 29 bis ||. ch. iv. 10 al. m Rom. i. 3 reff. x. 13 only. r see above (i). Deut. iv. 37. Matt. v. 20. John vy. 36. 1 John ii. 2. h ch. iv. 10. xii. 22. Gal. iv.9. Heb vii. 18. Wisd. ii. 11. i compar., Luke iii. 16 ἢ. xi. 22. ch. x. Phil. iii. 2. 1 Rom. xi. 29 reff. Eph. iv.1,4 al. o = Luke xix. 12 (Acts xvii. 11) only. Jobi.3. 2 Mace. q = ch. xi. 4, 5,22. 2 Kings xix. 5, s here only t. t = Rom. xiv. 3 reff. 25. ἐστιν bef των ανθρ. (both times) DF latt [Syr] arm Hil, [Ambrst, 2nd copt]. om 2nd εστιν BN! ο 17. 672 Orig, Eus). 26. for yap, ουν Di -gr] F eth (Pamph, [Orig, your ]). copt.—ov8e D![-gr ]. om ov πολλ. Suv. F[-gr | 27. om from [1st] to [2nd] wa A Ff-gr] m[: from 1st @eos to Geos (next ver) | Orig[-gr, }. rec τοὺς σοφους bef ckataicxvvy, with rel: txt BCDLPR k 17. 47 latt syrr copt eth arm Orig{ ΄ ve wp 80 2 ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ * ἐν χριστῷ ᾿Ἰησοῦ, ὃς » ἐγενήθη Vo’ a rn a , \ e \ \ Ἰὰ μηὲν σοφία ἡμῖν ° ἀπὸ θεοῦ ὁ δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ " ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ὄντα, τὰ δὲ δοκοῦντ᾽ ἀπώλεσαν. v Paul (Rom. iii. 3, 31. ch. ii. 6. xiii. 8 al.) only, exc. Luke xiii. 7. Heb. ii. 14. Ezra iv. 21. w absol.,ch.iv. 7. 2 Cor. xi. 16 al. 1 Kings ii. 3. x Acts ii. 17 reff. = Acts xix.9. 3 John 6. 2 = John vii. 22. Rom. xi. 36. a = Rom, viii. 1. xvi. 7, 11. 2Cor. v.17. Gal. 3. 22. Ὁ = 2 Cor. vii. 14. 1 Thess. i. 5 al. ec = Rom. xiii. 1. ch. iv. 5. vi. 19 al. d Rom. iii. 21, 25. e Rom. vi. 19 reff. rec ins καὶ bef ta un ovta (a mistaken supplement of the sense: see note), with BC3D3LPN?3 rel vulg [F-lat spec] fri syrr copt [eth-pl arm Pamph,] Origaiq Eus, Chr, Thdrt [Damase]: om AC? D!(and lat] F[-grj δὲ} 17 eth-rom Orig, [Euthal-ms | Iren-int Tert, Ambrst Tich. 29. Elz καυχησεται, with FP [bo]: txt ABCDLX rel Orig; .epe; Eus,. rec for του θεου, αὐτου (corrn, to avoid repetition, not observing the emphasis), with ΟἹ vulg syrr arm-use Orig, Dial, [Sevrn-c,] Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABC3DFLPN? rel fri spec copt arm-zob eth Orig,[-int,] Eus, Ephr, Bas Chr, Damase Thl Aug Tich,.—% began to write αὐτου, but erased it. 30. rec nuw bef cogia, with L rel vulg-ed(with [harl'}) syrr copt arm Orig, Eus, Mac, Chr, Thdrt [Cyr-p, Damasc] Ambr, Aug: txt ABCDFPN m 17 am(with demid harl? [fuld tol}) Origsepe [Dial,] Eus, Did, Cyr[-p,] Ambr, Ambrst Jer. nuev B. may belong to all four, the μωρά, ἀσθενῆ, ἀγενῆ, and éfovdev.,—but more probably it has reference only to the last two. Nothing (as e.g. μέγα τι) must be supplied «fter μὴ ὄντα: it means as good as having no existence: μή being subjective, and imply- ing that the non-existence is not absolute but estimative. Were it absolute matter of fact, it would be expressed by τὰ οὐκ ὄντα, as in 1 Pet. ii. 10, of οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, viv δὲ ἐλεηθέντες. See Hartung, Par- tikellehre, ii. p. 131; Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 5; and Phil. iii. 3; Eph. v. 4. Olshausen refines on the expression too much, when he explains it of those who have lost their old carnal life and have not yet acquired their new spiritual one: it more probably means, things (persons) of absolutely xo account in the world, unassignable among men, which the ἀγενῆ and ἐξουθενημένα are. | Meyer remarks that the threefold repetition of ἐξελ. ὁ θεός, with the three contrasts to σοφοί, δυνατοί, and εὐγενεῖς, announces the fact with a triumphant emphasis. καταργ.] ‘ reduce to the state of οὐκ ὄντα. All the ὄντα, the realities, of the world, are of absolutely no account, unassignable, in God’s spiritual kingdom. 29.| That all flesh may have no ground of boasting before God. The negative in these clauses goes with the verb, not with the adjective; so that each word retains its proper meaning. 30.| But (contrast to the boasting just spoken of) of Him are ye (from Him ye, who once were as οὐκ ὄντα,---ἐστέ.--- He is the author of your spiritual life) in (in union with) Christ Jesus, Who was made (not ‘is made: see reff. On γενήθη see 1 ‘Thess, i. 5 note) to us from for dix. τε, και δικ. D2(?]F Orig, [om τε 1)}}. God wisdom (standing us in stead of all earthly wisdom and raising us above it by being ἀπὸ @cod;—Wisdom—in His incarnation, in His life of obedience, in His teaching, in His death of atonement, in His glorification and sending of the Spirit; and not only Wisdom, but all that we can want to purify us from guilt, to give us righteousness before God, to sanctify us after His likeness, (and) both righteous- ness (the source of our justification before God), and sanctification (by His Spirit ; observe the τε καί, implying that in these two, δικαιοσ. and ἅγιασμ., the Christian life is complete—that they are so joined as to form one whole—our righteousness as well as our sanctification. As Bisping well remarks, “duc. and ay. are closely joined by the τε (καί) and form but one idea, that of Christian justification: δι- καιοσύνη the negative side, in Christ’s justifying work—ayiacudés the positive, sanctification, the imparting to us of sane- tifying grace ”’), and redemption (by satis- faction made for our sin, reff. :—or perhaps deliverance, from all evil, and especially from eternal death, as Rom. viii. 23: but I prefer the other). The foregoing construc- tion of the sentence is justified, (1) as regards ἀπὸ θεοῦ belonging to ἐγενήθη, and not to σοφία, by the position of ἡμῖν, which has been altered in ree. to connect σοφία with ἀπὸ θ., (2) as regards the whole four substantives being co-ordinate, and ndt the last three merely explicative of σοφία, by the usage of τε xal—xal, 6. g. Herod. i. 23, διθύραμβον πρῶτον ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν ποιήσαντά διδάξαντα, and Hom. Od. o. 78, ἀμφότε- pov, κῦδός τε καὶ ayAain καὶ bvesap,—se τε καὶ ὀνομάσαντα καὶ. ABCDF LPrab edefg hkim nol?. 47 11. 1—3. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 483 f ἀπολύτρωσις, 51 ἵνα ὃ καθὼς γέγραπται Ὁ " καυχώμενος f Rom. i. 24 2 yaa tl io 8 ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. II. 1 Κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ἦλθον οὐ i καθ᾽ g ch. ii. 9 reff. h Rom. ii. 17 reff. 1Kines ii. 10. JER. ks \ ΄ BY , ] I econ \ are ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας ' καταγγέλλων ὑμῖν τὸ ™ μαρὰ 15 ee Tuptov τοῦ θεοῦ. la} I \ a ΄, μὴ ᾿Ιησοῦν χρίστόν, 5“ καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον. / \ ῇ q ͵ Péy «ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ ἐν ᾿ φόβῳ καὶ " ἐν ® τρόμῳ = Acts xiii. 5 reff. part. pres., Acts xv. 27. o Rom. xiii. 11. ch. vi. 6, 8 al. 30. xii. 5, ἄς. only. Ps. liv. 5. s as above (r). 9 > ἐν n Ψ vg 5 / » οὐ yap " ἔκρινά τι εἰδέναι ἐν p = Rom. xy. 32 al. Heb. v. 2. vii. 28. Job xxxvii. 7. Mark xvi. 8 only. lil. 6. con > k 1 Tim. ii. 2 ὕμιν, El only. 1Kings g 30 yA Ald, compl. seed bs 2 et xiii. a 6only. πολλῷ (-έχειν, Rom. xiii. 1.) n -Ξ Acts xv, 19 reff. q = Rom. vi. 19. 2 Cor. xi. r 2 Cor. vii. 15. Eph. vi. 5. Phil. 1i. 12 m = ch. i. 6 reff. Cuap. II. 1. for waprupiov, μυστηριον (appy a gloss from ver 7) ACN’ n fri Syr copt Ambrst[mss vary] Ambr, Aug, : Chr, Cyr[-p Damasc] ΤῊ] (ec ΐ txt BDFLPN3 rel vulg syr sah eth arm Orig[-c,] Pel] Jer Bede. 2. rec aft expiva ins tov, with D?L rel Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] ce: om ABCD'3FPR ἃ πὶ 17 (Orig Ath) Chr, Cyr, Antch, Damase. ree εἰδεναι bef 71, with AD2F LN 47 Jatt r [syrr coptt arm ] Orig-c, Did, [Chr,] Cyr, Tert, [Ambrst]: txt BC(D1:3)P a m 17 Cyr, Bas, Isid, Chr, Tert Hil, Victorin Aug,.—7i ev paw ed. D'3: τοῦ εν υμιν etd. τι D2. (The posn of τι, and harshness of τι εἰδεναι, seem to have occasioned the trans- posns, and tov would be supplied from elsw, see Acts xxvii. 1, 1 Cor vii. 37.) Xp. bef ino. F 109 am(with harl tol) Orig-int., Hil, [Ambrst] Aug,. 3. rec kat eyw, with DFL rel Chr, Thdrt Thl Gc: txt ABCPN ak m 17 Orig,[-c, ] Bas, Antch, Damasc. 49. 119 latt [ Ambrst]. that (see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 103 ; Donaldson, Gr. Gram. 551) the words coupled by te καί (compare the exegesis above) rank as but one with regard to those coupled to them by καί, compare ἀμφότερον above. Hence these three eannot be under one category, as explica- tive of σοφία, but must be thus ranged: σοφία δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμός, Kal ἀπολύτρωσι-. 31.] The construction is an anacoluthon, the citation being re- tained in the original imperative, though the ἵνα required a subjunctive. It is freely made from the LXX. This verse declaring, in opposition to ver. 29, the only true ground of boasting, viz. in God and His mercies to us in Christ, closes the description of God's dealing in this matter. He now reverts to the subject of his own preaching. II. 1—5.] Accordingly, Paul did not use among them words of worldly wisdom, but preached Christ crucified only, in the power of the Spirit. 1.11 also (as one of the ἡμεῖς of ch. i. 23, and also with reference to the preceding verse, ὅ καυχ. ἐν κυρ. καυχάσθω) when I came to you, brethren, came, not with excellency of speech or wisdom announcing (pres. part., not fut.,—as in ref., and in Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29, és τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἔπλευσεν ἀγγέλλουσα τὰ γεγονότα. The time taken in the voyage is over- looked, and the announcement regarded as beginning when the voyage began) to you the testimony of (concerning) God. 2.| For I did not resolve to know om 2nd ev F 49 latt(exe D-lat) [Ambrst |. om 3rd ev DE any thing (hardly = ἔκρινα εἰδέναι οὐδέν, as E. V., but meaning, “the only thing that I made it definitely my business to know, was”) among you, except Jesus Christ (His Person) and Him (as) ecruci- fied (His Office). It would seem that the historical facts of redemption, and espe- cially the crucifixion of Christ, as a matter of offence, had been kept in the back- ground by these professors of human wisdom. ‘“ We must not overlook, that Paul does not say ‘ to know any thing of or concerning Christ,’ but to know Him HIMSELF, to preach Him HimsEtr. The historical Christ is also the living Christ, who is with His own till the end of time : He works personally in évery believer, and forms Himself in each one. There- ' fore it is universally CHrist HIMSELF, the crucified and the risen One, who, is the subject of preaching, and is also Wisdom itself: for His history evermore lives and repeats itself iu the whole church and in every member of it: it never waxes old, any more than does God Him- self ;—it retains at this day that fulness of power, in which it was revealed at the first foundation of the church.” Olshausen. 8.1 κἀγώ, and I, coupled to ἦλθον in ver. 1, and ἐγώ repeated for emphasis, the nature of his own preaching being the leading subject-matter here. The weak- ness and fear and much trembling must not beexclusively understood of his manner of speech as contrasted with the rhetorical preachers, for 6 λόγος μον kK. τὸ κήρυγμά Eee 484 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. IL t 3 ͵ ΐ Ν ε - 4 ἈΝ e , \ \ u / ἐπι οι αν το, ἡ ἐγενόμὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. * καὶ ὁ λόγος μου καὶ TO “KN- 2 John 12. , > 3 ~ 7 ͵ » ’ > see Matt. Vv Ὺ ¥ Sas cc) ἢ θυ μα oe Louie ee πειθοῖς “σοφίας "λόγοις, 2 ey Mark xiv. x ἀποδείξει Y πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως, ὃ ἵνα ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν u Rom. xvi. 25 reff v Lukeiv 32. w here only +. x here only t+. (-κνυσθαι, Acts li. 22.) y. 14 al. ᾿ς κὰν > / > , > > b] Z QS / a μὴ ἢ P ἐν σοφίᾳ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ᾽ Ρ ἐν 5 δυνάμει θεοῦ. er Ν Lal > Lal / 6 Σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς ὃ τελείοις, σοφίαν δὲ οὐ = νου. 13, Gal. ν. 5, 16. z ch. i. 18 reff. a=ch. xiv.20. Heb. 8 1 Chron, xxv 4. for πειθοις, πειθοι b1 601. 18). 48. 72. 106-8-53 D-lat G-lat am(with F-lat) Syr sah [zth-pl] arm Orig, Eus[-mss, Chr-mss,] Ath, Ambr, Ambrst Sedul Leo. rec ins ανθρωπινης bef σοφιας (explanatory gloss), with ACLPN® rel vulg-ed(with demid [fuld2] agst am fuld! tol) syr copt Orig, Ath, Mac, [Eus-inss, Bas, (Cyr-p,)] Cyr-jer, ΤῺ] (e Ambrst-comm [Pel] Sedul Bede: ανθρωπινοις m 93: om BDFR? 17 latt Syr sah wth arm Orig.[-int, Eus-mss,] Nys Cyr-jer, Chr[-mss, Sevrn-c, | Thdrt-ms, [ Damase Ambr,] Jer,. Aoywv Syr arm Orig,, των λογων Orig,, Aoyou [k] am D-lat sah, Aoyos N!: om Fa 18). 74 G-lat Orig, Ath, Ambrst-comm Sedul. αλλα B. 5. om 7 Fem. αλλα B. pov follow in the next verse,—but partly of this, and principally of his zxternal deep and humble persuasion of his own weak- ness and the mightiness of the work which was entrusted to him. So in Phil. ii. 12, 13, he commands the Philippians, μετὰ φόβον κ. τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε, θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν. The ἀσθένεια may have refer- ence to the παρουσία σώματος ἀσθενής of 2 Cor. x. 10. Chrys., al., understand it of persecutions : but in the places to which he refers, it hasa far wider meaning,—viz. infirmities, including those resulting from persecution. 4.) And (not adver- sative, as Olsh., but following naturally on the weakness, &c., just mentioned—‘as corresponding to it’) my discourse and my preaching (λόγος of the course of argu- ment and inculcation of doctrine, κήρυγμα of the announcement of facts. This (De W.) is better than with Olsh. to under- stand A. as his private, x. his public dis- course: see Luke iv. 32, and ὁ λόγος τ. σταυροῦ, ch. i. 18) was not in (did not consist of, was not set forth in, see ref.) persuasive (πειθός = πιθανός, πειστήριος, πειστικός in Greek. The var. readings have been endeavours to avoid the unusual word, which however is analogically formed from πειθώ, as φειδός from φείδομαι, as Meyer) words of wisdom (ἀνθρωπίνης, a gloss, but a correct one. ‘“ Corinthia verba, pro exquisitis et magnopere elaboratis, et ad ostentationem nitidis,’’? Wetst.), but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: i. e. either, taking the genitives as ob- jective, demonstration having for its object, demonstrating, the presence or working of the Spirit and Power of God (so Estius, Hillroth, al., and the gloss ἀποκαλύψει):--- or, taking them subjectively, demonstra- tion (of the teuth) springing from the EF οὐ αποδειξει, ἀποκαλύψει 1)}"5, Spirit and Power of God (so most Com- mentators. I prefer the latter. It can hardly be understood of the miracles done by the Spirit through him, which accom- panied his preaching (Chrys, al., Olsh.), for he is here simply speaking of the preaching itself. 5. ] ἡ ἐν, may be grounded on,—owe its origin and stability to. ‘The Spirit is the original Creator of Faith, which cannot be begotten of human caprice, though man has the capability of hindering its production : and it depends for its continuance on the same mighty Spirit, who is almost without intermission begetting it anew.” Olshausen. 6—16.] Yet the Apostles spoke wis- dom among the perfect, but of a kind higher than the wisdom of this world ; a wisdom revealed from God by the Spirit, only intelligible by the spiritual man, and not by the unspiritual (ψυχικό5). The Apostle rejects the imputation, that the Gospel and its preaching is inconsistent with wisdem, rightly understood: nay, shews that the wisdom of the Gospel is of a far higher order than that of the wise in this world, and far above their comprehen- sion. 6.] δέ contrasts with the fore- going. AaA.] viz. ‘we Apostles ? not ‘I Paul,’—though he often uses the plur. with this meaning :—for, ch. iii. 1, he re- sumes κἀγώ, ἀδελφοί. ἐν τ. τελείοις | among the perfect,—when discoursing to those who are not babes in Christ, but of sufficient maturity to have thei¥ senses exercised (Heb. v. 14) so as to discern good and evil. That this is the right interpreta- tion the whole following context shews, and especially ch. iii. 1, 2, where a difference is laid down between the milk administered to babes, and the strong meat to men. The difference is in the matter of the teaching itself: there is a lower, and there is ὃ ABCDF LPRab cdetg hklm nol7, 47 4—8. TOU , “ Δ lal ἴω τούτου τῶν “ καταργουμένων, 7 ἀλλὰ λαλοῦμεν ! θεοῦ ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 435 b Sa δ Ἔ ὃ \ a cd > / . A bd IA 4 atQ@VOS TOUTOU OQUOE ΤΩΡ apXOVT@V TOU At@VOS ὃ Hout, xli. 2 re c = Acts xiii. 27 reff. d here bis only. f , 5 > h if \ ΝΣ , ἃ k σοφιαν δἐν ἢ μυστηρίῳ τὴν αποκεκρυμμενὴν, ἣν “ προ- e = ch.i. 28 ΄ ΄ \ 1 \ A 1 ὠρισεν ὁ θεὸς ' πρὸ τῶν h = Rom. xi. 25. xvi. 25. ch. iv. 1. Col. i. 26 al. i. 26 only. 4 Kings iv. 27. lhere only. Ps. liv. 19. see Eph. Col, as above (i), 6. om Ist του ΕἾ ποῦ G]. BES, > ΄ e A αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν, Dan. ii. 18. reff. 8 ἣν fch. i. 21 reff. 4) g = ver. 13. ch. : xiv. 6. : i Luke x. 25. Eph. iii. 9. Col. k Acts,iv. 28. Rom. viii. 29, 30. Eph. i. 5, 11 only t. Jude 25. om from awy. rout. to aiwy. rout. F 114 lect-7 sth. 7. rec σοφιαν bef θεου (corrn, the emphasis not being noticed), with L rel Thdrt : txt ABCDFPR ἃ Καὶ πὶ 17 arm Clem, Orig, Eus, [ Bas, Chr, Cyr-p, }. higher teaching. So Erasm., Estius, Ben- gel, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette, al. On the other hand, Chrys., Theodoret, Theo- phyl., Calv., Grot., Olsh., al., understand the difference to be merely in the estimate formed of the same teaching according as men were spiritual or unspiritual, interpret- ing ἐν τ. τελείοις, ‘in the estimation of the perfect,’ which is philologically allowable, but plainly irreconcileable with the whole apologetic course of the chapter, and most of all with the οὐκ ἠδυνήθην k.7.A. of ch. iii. 1, where he asserts that he did not speak this wisdom to the Corinthians, We are then brought to the enquiry,—what was this copia? ‘Meyer limits it too narrowly to consideration of the future kingdom of Christ. Riickert adds to this, the higher views of the divine ordering of the world with respect to the unfolding of God’s kingdom,—of the meaning of the prepara- tory dispensations before Christ, e. g. the Jlaw,—of the manner in which the death and resurrection of Christ promoted the salvation of mankind. According to ver. 12, the knowledge of the blessings of sal- vation, of the glory which accompanies the kingdom of God, belongs to this higher species of teaching. Examples of it are found in the Epistle to the Romans, in the setting forth of the doctrine of justifica- - tion,—of the contrast between Christ and Adam,—of predestination (compare μυστή- ριον, Rom. xi. 25), and in the Epistles to the Eph. and Col. (where μυστήρ. often occurs) in the declarations respecting the divine plan of Redemption and the Person of Christ: nay, in our Epistle, ch.xv. Of the same kind are the considerations treated Heb. vii.—x.: cf. iv. 11 ff’ De Wette. But a wisdom not of this world,—not, as E. V., “ not the wisdom of this world,” which loses the peculiar force of the negative :—soin Rom. iii. 21, 22, we have δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται.. .. .. δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστ. Ἰησοῦ xp. See instances of the usage in note there. The ἄρχοντες are parallel with the σοφοί, δυνατοί, εὐγενεῖς, of ch. i. 26, and are connected with them expressly by the τῶν καταργουμένων, reterring to ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ, ch. i. 28. They comprehend all in estimation and power, Jewish or Gentile. ἄρχοντας δὲ αἰῶνος ἐνταῦθα οὐ δαίμονάς τινας λέγει, καθώς τινες ὑποπτεύ- ουσιν' ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐν ἀξιώμασι, τοὺς ἐν δυναστείαις, τοὺς τὸ πρᾶγμα περιμάχητον εἶναι νομίζοντας, φιλοσόφους κ. ῥήτορας κ. λογογράφους" καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἐκράτουν, κ. δημαγωγοὶ πολλάκις ἐγίνοντο. Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 50. τῶν KaTapy.| who are (being) brought to nought, viz. by God making choice of the weak and despised, and passing over them, ch. i. 28: not said of their transitoriness generally, as Chrys., Theophyl., Riickert,—nor of their power being annihilated at the coming of Christ (Grot., Meyer, al.),—nor as Olsh., of their having indeed crucified Christ, but of their being καταργούμενοι by His Resur- rection and the increase of His Church. 7.] But we speak Gon’s wisdom (emphasis on @e0v:—the wisdom which God possesses and has revealed) in a mys- tery (ἐν μυστ. does not belong to τὴν amorex., as Theodoret and Grot., which must be τὴν ἐν μυστ. arox.,—nor to σοφίαν, as Beza, Bengel, which though not absolutely, yet certainly here, seeing τὴν. ἀποκεκρ. immediately follows, would re- quire the art., τὴν ἐν pvot.,—but to AaAovpev,—* we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, i.e. as handling a mystery, deal- ing with a mystery. So τὴν σύνεσίν μου ἐν τῷ μυστ. τ. χριστοῦ, Eph. iii. 4. Estius and the Romanists, taking the con- nexion rightly, have wrested the meaning to support the disciplina arcani which they imagine to be here hinted at, explaining ἐν μυστ.. “non propalam et passim apud omnes, quia non omnes ea capiunt, sed . .. secreto et apud pauciores, scilicet eos qui spirituales et perfecti sunt,” Est.), which has been (hitherto) hidden (see Rom. xvi. 25; ref. Col.) :—-which God foreordained (nothing need be supplied, as ἀποκαλύπ- τειν, or the like, after προώρισεν) before the ages (of time) to (in order to, the purpose of this preordination) our glory (our participation in the things which He has prepared for them that love Him, ver. 9: δόξα, as contrasted with the bring- 486 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. II. \ lol , a “ ΄ Li mJames iit, Οὐδεὶς τῶν Sapyovtwyv τοῦ δ αἰῶνος ἢ τούτου ἔγνωκεν" εἰ ABCDF see Acts Vil. \ A ΄ a 2 Eph. yap ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν ™ κύριον τῆς ™ δόξης ἐσταύρω- cdefg 1. 5S olsi-lxiv. 4.” καὶ Pods οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ “ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ xv. lé. see ‘ - e Η͂ a as 9 : oes .@ ἀνέβη, ὅσα ἴ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν, ff. “ ΄ Ν ol / Lal 3 nets vii23 10 ἡμῖν δὲ S ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος [αὐτοῦ]" r r > Matt. xx. 23. xxv. 34. John xiv. 2, 3. s = Matt. xi. 25. Rom. i. 17. ch. xiv.30. Prov. xi. 13 al. 9. om αλλα A Pel. ev C[P] 80 Clem-rom, Smyrn-ep, [Bas, ]. rec (for ooa) &, with DFLPN rel Smyrn-ep, [Clem,] Orig, Const, Kus, [Ps-]Ath, Epiph, Cyr[-p Mae, Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt [Damase ] ΤῊ] (ἔς, gue latt [Orig-int,}: txt AB C(appy) Clem-rom, Hip, [Epiph,] Mac,. 10. for δε, yap B m 39. 46. 57. 71-3. 93. 116 coptt Clem, [Bas, Euthal-ms Antch, }. rec o Geos bef ἀπεκαλυψεν (appy, as above, corrn from not noticing the emphasis), with L rel syr sah Orig,[-c] Chr, Thdrt [Damasc]: txt ABCDFPX a τὴ 17 latt Syr copt «th arm Clem [Ath, Bas, Did,-int, Epiph, Euthal-ms Mac, Cyr, Antch,] Orig[-int; Hil]. om αὐτου (perhaps on acct of to mv. follg) ABCR! 17(appy) copt Clem, Bas, Cyr[-p, |: ins DFLPN% rel [latt syrr sah eth arm Ath,] Did, Epiph, Mac, ing to nought of the &pxovres). 8.) ἥν is in apposition with the former ἥν, and does not refer to δόξαν, as Tert. contra Mare. v. 6, vol. ii. p. 483,—* sub- jicit de gloria nostra, quod eam nemo ex principibus hujus evi scierit ...,” for this would be departing from the whole sense of the context, which is, that the wisdom of God was hidden from men. εἰ yap ἔγν. «.7.A., is a proof from experience, that the rulers of this world, of whom the Jewish rulers were a representative sample, were ignorant of the wisdom of God. Had they known it, they would not have put to a disgraceful death (6 σταυρὸς ἀδοξίας εἶναι δοκεῖ, Chrys.) Him who was the Lord of glory (reff.),—i.e. who possesses in his own right glory eternal, see John xvii. 5, 24. These words are not a parenthesis, but continue the sense of the foregoing, com- pleting the proof of man’s ignorance of God’s wisdom ;—even this world’s rulers know it not, as they have shewn : how much less then the rest. 91 But (opposition to ver. 8) as it is written, The things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which came not up (reff.) upon heart of man, how many things God pre- pared for them that love Him, to us God revealed through His Spirit. Thereis no anacoiuthon (as De W.) nor irregularity of construction, as some suppose, supplying after ἀλλά, λαλοῦμεν (Estius, &c.) or γέγονεν (Theophyl., Grot., al.) ; the δέ in the consequent clause after ὅς in the ante- cedent, which has occasioned these suppo- sitions, is by no means unexampled ;—so Herod. iii. 37, ds δὲ τούτους μὴ ὀπώπεε, ἐγὼ δέ οἱ onuavéw,—and Soph. Philoct. 86, ἐγὼ μὲν ods by τῶν λόγων ἀλγῶ κλύειν, Λαερτίου παῖ, τοὺς δὲ καὶ πράσσειν στυγῶ. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 184 f. Whence is the citation made? Origen says, ‘In nullo regular: libro invenitur, nisi in secretis Eliz prophet,’ a lost apocry- phal book :—Chrys., Theophyl., give the alternative, either that the words are a paraphrase of Isa. lii. 15, οἷς ode ἀνηγ- γέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται, κ. of οὐκ ἄκη- κόασι συνήσουσι, or that they were con- tained in some lost book, of which Chrys. argues that there were very many,—xat γὰρ πολλὰ διεφθάρη βιβλία, καὶ ὀλίγα δι- εσώθη. Jerome, Ep. lvii. (ci.), ad Pam- machium, de optimo genere interpretandi, 9, vol. i. p. 314, says, “ Solent in hoe loco apocryphorum quidam deliramenta sectari, et dicere quod de Apocalypsi Heliz testi- monium sumptum sit : cum in Esaia juxta Hebraicum ita legatur: A seculo non audierunt, nec auribus perceperunt, oculus non vidit, Deus, absque te, que preparas tu expectantibus te. Hoc LXX multo aliter transtulerunt: A seculo non audi- vimus, neque oculi nostri viderunt Deum absque te: et opera tua vera, et facies expectantibus te misericordiam. Intelli- gimus, unde sumptum sit testimonium : et tamen Apostolus non verbum expressit e verbo, sed παραφραστικῶς eundem sensum aliis sermonibus indicavit.” I own that probability seems to me to incline to Je- rome’s view, especially when we remember, how freely St. Paul is in the habit of citing. The words of Isa. Ixiv. 4, are quite as near to the general sense of the citation as is the case in many other instances, and the words” ἐπὶ καρδίαν οὐκ ἀνέβη may well be a reminiscence from Isa, xv. 17, not far from the other place, ov μὴ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν. Such minglings together of clauses from various parts are not unexampled with the Apostle, especially when, as here, he is not citing as authority, but merely ilus- 9---15. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 487 \ / A ‘ A aA τὸ yap πνεῦμα πάντα "ἐραυνᾷ, καὶ τὰ “ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ. t= Rom. vii , Ν 7 > , a 7 τ 27 reff. ; 11 τίς yap οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων " ta“ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἰ μὴ TO (PIE εν. xi. 33} a) “ ’ 4 > n » Ε . Χ πνεῦμα © τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ ; οὕτως καὶ " τὰ τοῦ τοῦ" Judith θεοῦ οὐδεὶς ἔγνωκεν, εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ. 13 ἡμεῖς δὲ ¥ Matt. xvi. 28, : JP Luke ii. 49. \ e A , a ἡ οὐ τὸ “ πνεῦμα τοῦ ὅ κόσμου * ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλὰ TO πνεῦμα w James iv. 14. ener. art., Alls 115 X35 a θ a aA X ς Ν a Ab , Ἢ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα εἰδῶμεν τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ " χαρισθέντα * = Acts xi. ΤΟΙ. ς a Acts viii. 15 reff. c = ver..7. xvii. 25 reff. Chr, Thdrt [Damasc ] ΤῊ] ec Orig{-c, ]-int, Hil. 11. om avOpwrwy A 17 Ath, Cyr[-p,(ins,) }. το Tov θεου D!: τα εν τω θεω ΕἾ -gr] lat-ff. Orig.{ins,-int, ] Hil, Ambr,[ins, }. y see Rom. viil ἡμῖν, 3 ἃ καὶ λαλοῦμεν οὐκ “ ἐν ἃ διδακτοῖς ° ἀνθρωπίνης * z here only. Ὁ pass., Acts iii. 14. Phil. i. 29, Philem. 22. L.P.+ (2 Macc. iii. 33. dhere bis. John vi. 45 only, from Isa. liv. 13. see 1 Thess. iv. 9. rf e Acts (epavva, so ABICN.) om 2nd tov ανθρωπου F arm-mss rec. (for εγνωκεν) οιδεν (prob acorrn to corresp with previous clause), with L rel Orig, [Ath,] Chr, Thdrt: txt ABCDPX adm 17 Orig, Ath, Cyr-jer, Bas, Cyr[-p Euthal-ms] Antch, Damasc, eyyw F 23 Ath, Cyr-jer, Bas, Epiph,, cognovit latt(but δοὐέ fri Augsepe) Ambr,. at end add το ev avtw P [(Tert,) ]. 12. aft κοσμου ins τουτου DF [vulg(not fuld harl!) copt arm Bas-ms,] Cyr, [Orig- int, Hil,(but mss vary) Ambrst]. om last του P [(k) Orig, ]. 13. om ἅ F/-gr]. trating his argument by O. T. expres- sions. 10. τὸ πνεῦμα] the Holy Spirit of God—but working in us and with our Spirits, Rom. viii. 16. “ Suffi- ciat nobis Spiritum Dei habere testem : nihil enim tam profundum est in Deo quo non penetret.” Calvin. épavvg | a word of active research, implying accurate knowledge: so Chrys., οὐκ ἀγνοίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκριβοῦς γνώσεως ἐνταῦθα τὸ ἐρευνᾷν ἐνδεικτικόν. τὰ βάθη] see reff. There is a Ἢ here_ between the Spirit of God and the spixit-of_a..man, which is further carried out in the next verse. And thus as the spirit of a man knows the βάθος of a man, all that is in him, so the Spirit of God searches and knows τὰ βάθη, the manifold and infinite depths, of God—His Essence, His Attri- butes, His Counsels: and being τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν, besides being τὸ mv. τοῦ θεοῦ (De Wette well observes that the Apostle purposely avoids using the expression τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ of the Spirit of God, keeping the way open for the expression in ver. 12, τὸ mv. τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ), teaches us according to our capacity, those depths of God. 11.] For who among MEN knoweth the things of a MAN (τοῦ ἀνθρώ- mov, generic, see reff. The emphasis is on ἀνθρώπων and ἀνθρώπου, as compared with θεοῦ) except the spirit of a man which is in him? Thus the things of God algo none knoweth, except the Spirit of God{ We may remark, (1) that nothing need be supplied (as βάθη) after τά in each case, see reff. (2) that the comparison here must not be urged beyond what is in- tended by the Apostle. He is speaking of ιδωμεν DFL[P ἃ τὰ (n)] Orig,(elsw εἰδ.). the impossibility of any but the Spirit of God conferring a knowledge of the things of God. In order to shew this, he com- pares human things with divine, appealing to the fact that none but the spirit of a man knows his matters. But further than this he says nothing of the similarity of relation of God and God’s Spirit with man and man’s spirit: and to deduce more than this, will lead into error on one side or the other. In such comparisons as these especially, we must bear in mind the constant habit of our Apostle, to contem- plate the thing adduced, for the time, only with regard to that one point for which he adduces it, to the disregard of all other considerations. 12.) ἡμεῖς δέ carries on the ἡμῖν δέ of ver. 10. τὸ TV. τ. κόσμ.} Not merely, the mind and senti- ments of unregenerate mankind, ‘sapientia mundana et secularis,’ as. Estius, al., but the Spirit (personally and objectively taken) of the world, = τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ νῦν ἐνεργοῦν ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς THS ἀπειθείας, Eph. ii. 2, where it is strictly personal. τὸ πν. τὸ ἐκ τ. θ.] Not only, ‘the Spirit of God,’ but the Spirit which is ἜΡΟΝ Sots —to shew that we have received 16 only by the will and imparting of Him whose Spirit it is. And this expression prepares the way for the purpose which God has in imparting to us His Spirit, that we may know the things freely given to us by God, i.e. the treasures of wisdom and of felicity which are the free gifts of the gospel dispensation, Ξε ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν 6 θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν, ver. 9. 18.1 καί, also; τὰ χαρισθ. ἡμῖν, we e_notonly know | by the teaching of the Holy Ghost, but. ALL / \ { j 488 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. II. 14—16. (ver 4 σοφίας λόγοις, ἀλλ᾽ * ἐν 4 διδακτοῖς f πνευματος, ἕ πνευ- Β' = ch.ili. 1 a : j 3 Ὁ». χἰν. ὅτ, Gl. μα τικοῖς " πνευματικὰ 'ἱ συγκρίνοντες. 14} ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄν- hch. x. 3, ἃ >k Or reff. θρωπος ov * δέχεται’ i 2 Cor. x. 12 (bis) only ζ. Gen. xl. 8. Num. xv. 34. a ) ἡ ὧν αν, ὁ TLK@S ° AVAKPWETAL. (bis), 46. yee iii. 15. Jude 19 only +. 1, 2]. Prov. iv. 10. o Acts iv. 9 reff. 1 ver. 11 reff. “‘ Xovyos a rescript δὲ} ” Tischdf. Ta τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ" ™ μωρία n ‘ lal \ . -“ “ γὰρ αὶ αὐτῷ ἐστιν, καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι " πνευμα- - ΄ 169 δὲ ὅ πνευματικὸς ° ἀνακρίνει k = Luke viii. 18... Acts viii, 14, xi. 1. xvii. 11. 1 Thess. i. 6. ii. 13. James m ch. i. 18 (reff.). n Rev. xi. 8 only t. rec aft mvevuaros ins ayiov, with D3LP rel [fuld? | syr eth Eus, Chr, Thdrt: om ABCD!FR 17 latt Syr copt arm Clem, Hip, Orig,{-c, | Eus, Epiph, [{ Damasc ]. F[-gr]: συγκρινοντος P. also speak them, not in words (arguments, Thetorical forms, &c.) taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit. The genitives are governed_by d:daxtTots-in_each case?r see ref., and cf. Pind. Olymp. ix. 153: τὸ δὲ φυᾷ κράτισ- Tov ἅπαν. πολλοὶ δὲ διδακταῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀρεταῖς κλέος ὥρουσαν ἑλέσθαι: ἄνευ δὲ θεοῦ K.T.A. πνευμ... .. TV. συγκρ.] interpreting spiritual things to the spi- ritual. So Theophyl. altern., πνευματικοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες καὶ διαλύοντες" οὗτοι γὰρ μόνοι δύνανται χωρεῖν ταῦτα. And very nearly so as regards συγκρίνοντες Chrysostom and Grotius ; only they take πνευματικοῖς not masc. but neuter, ‘ by spiritual things:’ ὅταν mvevua- τικὸν Kat ἄπορον ἢ, ἀπὸ τῶν πνευμα“ "κῶν τὰς μαρτυρίας ἄγομεν. οἷον λέγω, ὅτι ἂν- ἔστη ὁ χριστός, ὅτι ἀπὸ παρθένου ἐγεννήθη. παράγω μαρτυρίας κ. τύπους κ. ἀποδείξεις, τοῦ ᾿Ιωνᾶ, «.7.A. Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 55. ‘Exponentes ea que Prophet Spiritu Dei acti dixere, per ea que Christus suo Spiritu nobis aperuit.’? Grot. Pei nies that συγκρίνω ever means to Ἵ = pret: but evidently-the LXX do~so-use it in Gen. xl. 8, ἐνύπνιον εἴδομεν, καὶ ὃ συγκρίνων οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτό. See also ib. vv. 16, 22, and Dan. ν. 12, Theodotion (where he LXX have συγκρίματα ἀπέδειξε). Reuse, Beza, Calvin, De Wette, and Meyer render it, ‘fitting, or attaching, spiritual words to spiritual things’ And so I gave and defended it in my earlier editions. It seems to. me now more natural to take πνευματικοῖς as masculine, and as leading to the introduction of the two men, the ψυχικός, and the πνευμα- τικός, immediately after. 14. He now prepares the way for shewing them that he could not give out the depths of this spiritual wisdom and eloquence to them, because they were not fitted for it, being carnal (ch. iii. 1—4). ψυχ. δὲ ἄνθ.7 The animal man, as distinguished from the spiritual man, is he, whose governing principle and highest reference of all things is the ψυχή, the animal for πνευματικοῖς, πνευματικως B17. 218, συνκρινομιεν soul, αἰτία κινήσεως ζωικῆς ζώων, Plato, Definit. p. 411. In him, the πνεῦμα, or spirit, being unvivified and uninformed by the Spirit of God, is overborne by the animal soul, with its desires and its judg- ments,—and is im abeyance, so that he may be said to have it ποὺ,»---ψυχικοὶ, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες, ref. Jude. oe is that.side—of~the--human--soul,.so_ to speak, which is twrned.towards.the flesh, the world, the devil: so that the ψυχικός is necessarily in a measure σαρκικός (ch. iii. 3), also emiyesos, and δαιμονιώδης, as in ref. James. This general interpreta- tion of ψυχικός must be adhered to, and we must not make it merely intellectual, as Theodoret,—6 μόνοις τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀρκού- μενος λογισμοῖς,---ἀτοῦ. “qui humane tantum rationis luce ducitur :”—Chrys. : ὁ τὸ πῶν τοῖς λογισμοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς διδούς, καὶ μὴ νομίζων ἄνωθέν τινος δεῖσθαι βοηθείας,---Ποῦ merely ethical, ἃ5. Erasm., Rosenmiiller (‘qui eupiditatum sub im- perio omnem vitam transigunt’), al.,—but embracing both these. ov δέχεται, receives not, i. 6. rejects, see reff.,—not vannot..receive, ‘non capax est,’ under stands not, which is against the context, \— for we may well understand that which seems folly to us, but we reject it, as unworthy of our consideration :—and_ it besides would involve a tautology, this point, of inability to comprehend, follow- ing by and by:—and he cannot know them (τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, the matter of our spiritual teaching, itself furnished by tve Spirit) because they are spiritually (by the πνεῦμα of a man exalted by the Spirit of God into its proper paramount office of judging and ruling, and inspired and en- abled for that office) judged of. 15.] But (on the contrary) the spiritual man (he, in whom the πνεῦμα rules: and since by man’s fall the πνεῦμα is overridden by the animal soul, and in abeyance, this always presupposes the infusion of the Holy Spirit, to quicken and inform the nvevpa—so that there is no such thing as an unregenerate πγρευματικύς) Judges of all ABCD? LPNab cdefg hk)m o 17, 47 -Ξ3... ἘΠῚ \ See N pA oe bf] \ [μὲν] travra, αὐτὸς δὲ ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς \ » Ρ le) / ἃ ᾳ ΄ ᾽ ΄ 3 ς a δὲ γὰρ ἔγνω Ρ νοῦν κυρίου, ὃς ἃ συμβιβάσει αὑτόν ; ἡμεῖς δὲ ¥ νοῦν χριστοῦ * ἔχομεν. III. 1 Kayo, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἠδυνήθην λαλῆσαι ὑμῖν 15. om ver X}(ins &-corr’) harl?. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 489 ΄ 16 P TUS p Rom. xi. 34, from Isa. xl. 13. (compare Wisd. ix. 13.) q Acts ix. 22. xvi. 10. xix. o 2 / AVAKPLWETAL, ii. 2, 19 only. L Lev. x. 1. τ Rev. siii. 18. om μεν ACD!F latt Syr copt arm (Iren,) Clem, Orig, Meth Thdrt, lat-ff: ins BD*-3LP N-corr! rel syr Orig,[-c Euthal-ms Did. ] Mac, Chr, Thdrt,. (Has μεν been insd on acct of the δὲ follg, as Meyer,—or omd on acct of the δε precedg, as De W ?) ins ta bef παντα ACD'P 17 Iren-ms Orig, Nys, Chr,: om BD*3FL &-corr! Clem, Orig; Meth Mac, Thdrt, [Damasc]. (τα was prob a gloss to shew that παντα was not mase sing acc.) 16. for χριστου, κυριου B D!{-gr] F Thl-txt Ambrst Aug, Sedul. (Mechanical repetn of vouy κυρ. above. So Meyer, rightly : addg, if any gloss had been written in marg on κυριου, it wd not have been χριστου, but θεου, seeing that the ref of the foregoing κυρ. 7s to GOD.) CuapP. III. 1. rec καὶ eyw, with L rel Thdrt ΤῊ] Gc: txt ABCDFPN a m 17 Clem, Orig,[-c, Did, Euthal-ms] Chr, Damasc. εδυνηθην (Ὁ. uu. bef λαλ. Ὠ2[-ργ]. LP abcefgh!1n o vulg Clem, Orig,[-c,-int,] Chr, Damasc [Cypr, Ambrst Pel]. things (Meyer, reading τὰ πάντα, interprets it, ‘all spiritual things ;’ but the ordinary ᾿ isbetter : the Apos- πάντα would not be used absolutely, for ‘every man,’ but either πάντα ἄνθρωπον, as Col. i. 28, or τὸν πάντα), but himself is judged of by none (who is not also mvev- ματικός, see ch. xiv. 29; 1 John iv. 1, where such judgment is expressly attributed to Christian believers). καὶ yap 6 βλέπων, πάντα μὲν αὐτὸς καθορᾷ καὶ τοῦ μὴ βλέπον- ToS, τὰ δὲ ἐκείνου τῶν μὴ βλεπόντων οὐδείς. Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 57. 16.] PRooF oF αὐτὸς δὲ ὑπ᾽ οὐδ. avaxpiverar. In order for an wnassisted man, not gifted from Christ, to judge the πνευματικός, he must know the νοῦς κυρίου, the intent and disposition of Christ ; yea more, must be able to teach, to instruct, Christ—being not, as the mvevmatixds,—taught by Him, he must have an independent. wisdom of his own, which Christ has not :—and who is there, of whom this can be said? But we (πνευματικοί, among whom he includes himself and the other Apostles) have (not a wisdom independent of Christ, nor do we know His mind, nor can we teach Him, but) the mind of Christ: the same mind, in our degree of apprehensiveness of it, by the imparting of His Spirit, which is in Him, and so can judge all things. The νοῦς κυρίου is the spiritual intent and de- signs of Christ. κυρίου in the prophecy is spoken of JEHOVAH ; but in the whole of Isa. xl., the incarnate Jehovah is the sub- ject. The meaning of συμβιβάζω, to teach, belongs to the LXX: in the N. T. it is to conclude, to prove, to confirm, see reff. III. 1—4,| He could not speak to them in the perfect spiritual manner above described, seeing that they were carnal, and still remained so, as was shewn by their divisions. 1.1 κἀγώ, I also; i.e. as well as the ψυχικός, was compelled to stand on this lower ground, —he, because he cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God: I, because you could not receive them. Or perhaps better, with Stanley, “ καὶ ἔγώ, as in ii. 1, « What I have just been saying, was ex- emplified in our practice.” ’ σαρκίνοις is certainly the true reading, being, besides its manuscript authority, required by the sense. He was compelled to speak to them (this affirmative clause is to be sup- plied from the former negative one) as to men of flesh: not ὡς σαρκικοῖς, for that they really were, and he asserts them yet to be, ver. 3. I quite agree with Meyer (against De Wette) that the distinction between σάρκινοι and σαρκικοί is designed by the Apostle, and further regard it as implied in the very form of the sentences. Here, he says that he was compelled to speak to them as if they were only of flesh, —as if they were babes, using in both cases the material comparison, and the particle of comparison ὡς. But in ver. 3 he drops comparison, and asserts matter of fact—‘ Are ye not still σαρκικοί (= ὡς σάρκινοι), fleshly, carnal, living after the flesh, resisting the Spirit ?’—gq.d. ‘I was obliged to regard you as mere men of flesh, without the Spirit: and it is not far different even now: ye are yet fleskly—ye retain the same character.’ Both the σάρκινοι, the mere men of the flesh, 490 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A, Ill. s = ch. ii. 15. t Rom. vii. (4 A 2 Vv 7 ε a w. / > x a ” “eff. OTM. ava vua ἐποτισα υ ωμα" oO Pes re Oe σαν 0) “Sst 25} L. Rom. ayf δύ θε: Ry feb. a Ρ ΒΟΥΣῚ bv \ 2 oA nd \ ce ¥ 3 Ps ὃ σαρκικοί ἐστε. ὃ ὅπου γὰρ ἐν ὑμῖν “ὦ ζῆλος καὶ “ὁ ἔρις, xvi. . \ fon Pind. Pyth. οὐχὶ ὃ σαρκικοί ἐστε καὶ Ἶ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ὃ περιπατεῖτε ; h. ix. 7. 7 Χ ΄ \ ’ \ r ᾽ . 7 Ψ a, 4 ὅταν γὰρ λέγῃ " τὶς ᾿Εγὼ μέν εἰμι ' Παύλου, " ἕτερος δὲ 13. 1 Pet. ii. 2 nly. Gch: xviii. 8. w Rom. xii. 20 reff. x Matt. xiv. 15 jj. Luke iii. 11. Rom. xiv. a here bis. Rom. b = Heb. 7 y = 2 Cor. vii. 11. z = Acts xix. 2. ch. iv. 3 al. xv. 27. ch. ix. 11. 2Cor.i.12. χ. 4. 1 Pet. ii. 11 only. 2 Chron. xxxii. 8 compl. only. ix. 16. x. 18. James iii.16. 2 Pet. ii. 11. c Rom. xiii. 13. 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gal.v. 20. Sir. xl. 5. e ch. 1. 11 reff. f Rom. iii. 5. ch. xv. 32. Gal. i. 11. 111.15. 1 Pet. iv. 6. (see g = Rom. viii. 4. Eph. ii. 2 al. h = Luke xi. 15, 16 al. i gen., ch. i. 12 reff. ἃ = Acts xiii. 45 reff. Rom. vi. 19.) rec σαρκικοις (see notes), with C3D°FLP rel Clem, Orig[-c,]: txt ABC!D!8 17 Clem- ms, Orig, Nys,. 2. [υμιν L Orig-c,.] rec ins kat bef ov Bpwua, with DFL rel Syr eth arm (Orig,) Cxs, Thl (ἔξ: om ΑΒΟΡΝ m 17 vulg fri syr copt Iren-gr, Clem, Orig{-c3-intsepe . Dial,] Eus, Did Cyr, Cypr, Hil, [Ambrst]. rec novvacbe, with DLacdk ἢ 47 Iren, Orig, Cxs, Dial, [Did, Chr,] Thdrt: txt A B(sic: see table) CFLP rel Clem, Orig,[-c, Chr, Damase]. rec ovte (see note), with L rel Orig, ic: txt ABCDFPN edfk 17 Iren Clem, Orig,[-c, Euthal-ms]. (om last clause m (eeth].) om ert B Orig-int, Cypr,. 8. σαρκινοι (twice) DIF Orig[1st,, 2nd,] (error by repeatg σαρκιν. from ver 1, the difference not being noticed: see there): txt ABCD*LPX rel Clem,/ 1st, | Orig[1st,- ¢,, 2nd, Chr, }. ist eore bef 1st σαρκ. DF am(with demid harl tol) Clem, Orig, Nys Cypr, [Hil,] Aug: txt ABCLP® rel [vulg-clem Clem,] Orig,[-c, Dial, | Chr Thdrt [ Damasc]. quy F[-gr]. rec aft epis ins καὶ διχοστασιαι ( from Gal v. 20), with DFL rel syrr Iren-gr, Chr, Thdrt Cypr,: om ABCPR a vulg fri [spec] copt 2th arm Clem, Dion Orig, Eus,.—epers A F[-gr] L [6] n [Eus, ]. 4. τις bef Aeyn DF [vulg fri Ambrst]. Chr,: om eyo m. and the σαρκικοί, the carnally disposed, are included under the more general ψυχικοί, which therefore, as Meyer ob- serves, is not here used, because this dis- tinction was to be made. ὡς νηπ. ἐν χρ. The opposite term, τέλειοι ἐν xp., is found Col. i. 28, and in connexion with this, Heb. v. 13,14. Schéttgen (on 1 Pet. ii. 2) and Lightfoot adduce the similar Rabbi- nical term nipirn, sugentes, used of novices in their schools. A recent proselyte also was regarded by them as a newborn infant. He speaks of his first visit to Corinth, when they were recently admitted into the faith of Christ,—and excuses his merely elementary teaching by the fact that they then required it. Not this, but their οὐδ requiring it, is adduced as matter of blame to them. 2.) See the same figure in Heb. v.12. Soalso Philo de Agricult. § 2, vol. i. p. 801, ἐπεὶ δὲ νηπίοις μέν ἐστι γάλα τροφή, τελείοις δὲ τὰ ἐκ πυρῶν πέμ- ᾿ ματα, καὶ ψυχῆς γαλακτώδεις μὲν ἂν elev τροφαὶ κατὰ τὴν παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν... τέ- λειαι δὲ καὶ ἀνδράσιν ... - Basil, Hom.i. p. 403, ed. Paris, 1638, cited by Meyer, explains, γάλα, τὴν εἰςταγωγικὴν K. ἅπλου- στέραν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διδασκαλίαν : see also Heb. vi. 1,--τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ χριστοῦ λόγον. On ἐπότισα. .. . βρῶμα, Wetst. quotes νέκταρ τ᾽ ἀμβροσίην τε, τά περ θεοὶ αὐτοὶ ἔδουσι, Hes. Theogon. 640. See for etep. δε eyw, eyw δε A c 28. 224 Hom. 1]. 6. 546. Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 66. 2. e. οὔπω yap ἐδύνασθε] Hither, for ye were not yet able (scil. βρῶμα ἐσ- θίειν), τοῦ, for ye were not yet strong, δύναμαι being used absolutely, as in De- mosth. 1187. 8, δυνάμενος τῷ τε πράττειν kK. τῷ εἰπεῖν, and 484. 25, τῶν πολιτευο- μένων τινὲς δυνηθέντες, and see other reff. in Meyer. In the former case, the ellip- sis is harsh: the latter meaning seems preferable, though not found elsewhere in the N. T. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔτι viv, but neither even now . . .; the οὔτε of the rec. is grammatically inadmissible,—see Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 6. ᾿ 3.7] On σαρκικοί, see above, ver. 1. που, not = ἐπεί, but putting the assumption in a local form, see reff. ζῆλος, emu- lation, in a bad sense; or as in reff., ‘angry jealousy.’ κατὰ ἄνθρ., see reff., according to the manner of (unre- newed and ungodly) man, = κατὰ σάρκα, Rom. viii. 4; see Rote on ch. xv. 32. 4.1 He names but two of the foregoing designations, ch. i. 12: intending, both there more fully, and here briefly, rather to give a sample of the sectarian spirit prevalent, than to describe, as matter of fact, any sects into which they were actually divided : see note there, and on ch. iv. 6. Meyer sees in the mention here of Paul and Apollos only, a reference to the ᾿ ς “- > ᾽ «ς { Sf e u 4 > ὡς “πνευματικοῖς, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ‘oapKivols, ws ἅ νηπίοις εν ABCDF ΓΕΡῸ ἃ Ὁ defg > a h lm Yarn 5 οὐδὲ ἔτει νῦν δύνασθε' ὃ ἔτι yap nol 47 7. 2—8. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 491 \ 3 , 9 Ἐγὼ ᾿᾿Απολλώ, οὐκ 1ἄνθρωποί ἐστε; ὅ τί[ς] οὖν ἐστιν j see ver. 3. => 5 . : , , , ? A , fe 2 reff. Απολλώς; τί[ς] δέ ἐστιν Παῦλος ; διάκονοι δι’ Ov, ore pom. k 2 ΄ λιτὴν ὅς 7 ς ΄ ΄, ” Ὁ 24s xii. 3. ch. vil, ἐπιστεύσατε, καὶ |éxaoTwm ὡς ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν. © ἐγὼ : > \ ‘ ς " ἐφύτευσα, ᾿Απολλὼς " ἐπότισεν, ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς 5 ηὔξανεν: Matt, αν ἢ f e ΄ / e Gen. ii. 8 al. 7 ὥςτε οὔτε ὁ ™ φυτεύων ἐστίν TL, οὔτε ὁ " ποτίζων, GAN’ n Rom. χη. 'M φ ’ ς e reny. 7 Ὁ °avéavev θεός. 8 ὁ τὰ φυτεύων δὲ καὶ ὁ " ποτίζων 4 ἕν otra, here dis. is m ch. ix. 7. Matt. xv. 13. 2». Oe0¢ F[-gr] " : eer ahs ς : Ξ 2 Cor. ix. 10 (and also εἰσιν, ἕκαστος δὲ Tov ἴδιον * μισθὸν λήμψεται κατὰ TOV Li's. mid. ABCDL 2 Cor. x. 15. Col. 1. 6,10. 1 Pet. ii. 2 only. intr., Acts vi. 7 reff. ῬΞΞ ΟΡ ΡΤ x. 19. Gal. ii. 6. vi. 3, 15. Demosth. 582. 27. q constr., John x. 30. xvii. 11, &c. Eph. ii. 14. ERabe r= Rom. iv. 4 reff. “ P defgh i ΧΩ ἶ klmn 017, 47 166 ovyt (corrn from ver 3), with DFLPN rel [Nyss,] Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] Ge: [ov Ὁ k Euthal-ms :] txt ABC! 17 Damasc. rec for ανύρωποι, σαρκικοι (corrn from ver 3), with LPN? rel syrr [Nyss,]: txt ABCDFN?! 17 latt copt eth arm Damasc Orig- int, Ambrst Aug,.—P adds at end καὶ k. ανθ. περιπατειτε (also from ver 8). 5. τι (twice) ABN! 17 latt eth [Euthal-ms Damasc Ambrst Aug;ep. Pel] (prob corrn to suit the sense: the question being rather qualis est than quis est): τις CDFLPR? rel syrr copt arm Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] Ge. rec mavAos Tis δε amoAAws (alteration of order, to suit ver 4), with D?[-gr] L rel syrr eth arm Chr, Thdrt Opt, : txt ABC(D'3F)PX& m 17 latt copt [Euthal-ms] Damasc Ambrst Aug, Pel.—rec om 2nd εστιν, with DFL latt copt arm Chr, Thdrt [Th] Gc]: ins ABCPX m 17 [Euthal- ms Damasc]. rec ins αλλ᾽ ἡ bet διακον. (addition to complete the sense), with D*-3[-gr] LP rel syrr [Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt Th] ec Opt,: om ABC D'{and lat] FR vulg [fri] copt eth arm Damase Ambrst Pel [ Augszpe |. om ws C toll. 6. (aAAa, so ABD!FN, (for adda o, o δε 17 [ Orig, |.)) 7. om Ist ουτε A. two methods of teaching which have been treated of in this section: but as Il have before said, the German Commentators are misled by too definite a view of the Corinthian parties. ἄνθρωποι, i. 6. walking κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ,--- σαρκικοί. 5—15.| He takes occasion, by example of himself and Apollos, to explain to them the true place and office of Chris- tian teachers: that they are in them- selves nothing (vv. 5—8), but work for God (vv. 9, 10), each in his peculiar department (ver. 10; cf. ver. 6), each re- quiring serious care as to the manner of his working, seeing that a searching trial of its worth will be made in the day of the Lord (vv. 10—15). 5.] οὖν follows on the assumption of the truth of the divided state of things among them: ‘Who then (What then)... . , seeing that ye exalt them into heads over you ?’ The question is not asked by an objector, but by Paul himself; when an objector is introduced, he notifies it, as ch. xv. 35; Rom. ix 19. ἐπιστεύσατε, as in reff. : ye became believers. ἑκάστῳ @S..., = ὡς ἔδωκ. 6 κύρ. ἑκάστῳ, see reff? It refers, not to the teachers, but to the hearers, see below 6 αὐξάνων θεός. In the rec. text, the question is carried on to the end of the verse by ἀλλ᾽ ἤ, which is good Greek for < nisi,’ ‘ preterquam, — 80 οὐδὲ χρησόμεθα ἐξηγητῇ GAN ἢ τῷ πατρῴῳ, Plato, Rep. p. 427, see Hartung, ‘Partikellehre, ii. 44,—but seems to have for 2nd oute, ovde CR}, αλλα D}, been inserted from not observing the form of the sentence. 6.] The similitude is to a tilled field (γεώργιον, ver. 9): the plants are the Corinthians, as members of Christ, vines bearing fruit: these do not yet appear in the construction: so that I prefer, with De Wette, supplying nothing after ἐφύτευσα and ἐπότισεν, re- garding merely the acts themselves, as in E. V. If any thing be supplied, it must . be ὑμᾶς, which would but ill fit ver. 7. Apollos was sent over to Corinth after Paul had left it (Acts xviii. 27), at his own request, and remained there preaching during Paul’s journey through Upper Asia (ib. xix. 1). 7.) ἐστίν τι, either ‘is any thing to the purpose,’ as in λέγειν τι, &e., or absol. is any thing: which latter is best: compare «i kal οὐδέν εἰμι, 2 Cor. xii. 11. ἀλλ᾽ ὁ αὐξ. θεός, scil. τὰ πάντα ἐστί,--- to be supplied from the negative clauses preceding. Theophylact remarks: ὅρα πῶς ἀνεπαχθῆ ποιεῖ THY ἐξουδένωσιν τῶν προεστώτων ἐν Κορίνθῳ σοφῶν κ. πλου- σίων, ἑαυτὸν κ. ᾿Απολλὼ κατὰ τὸ φαινό- μενον ἐξουδενώσας, κ. διδάξας, ὅτι θεῷ δεῖ μόνῳ προΞέχειν, K. εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνατιθέναι πάντα τὰ συμβαίνοντα ἀγαθά. 8.1 ἕν, in the nature of their ministry,— generically, κατὰ τὴν ὑπουργίαν' ἀμφό- Tepar γὰρ τῷ θείῳ διακονοῦσι βουλή- ματι. Theodoret. ἕκαστος δὲ .. .7 Here he introduces a new element—th separate responsibility of each minister 492 [ὃ « r s=2Cor. vi.5 LOLOV ~ KOTrOV. reff. t1 Thess. iti. 2 only. u - Rom. xvi. 3 reff. v here only. Prov. xxiv. 3. xxxi. 16. % ᾿ fs (ys, John ἃ γχγῷς ὃ ἐποικοδομεῖ. xv. 1. -yeuv, ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. γίον, θεοῦ * οἰκοδομή ἐστε. τὴν " δοθεῖσάν μοι ὡς Y σοφὸς 5 ἀρχιτέκτων * θεμέλιον Ὁ ἔθηκα, ἄλλος δὲ “ ἐποικοδομεῖ. ἕκαστος δὲ 4 βλεπέτω 11 ab θεμέλιον γὰρ ἄλλον οὐδεὶς TIT. 9t θεοῦ yap ἐσμεν “ συνεργοί: θεοῦ " yewp- 10 κατὰ τὴν * γάριν τοῦ θεοῦ nv ~ xap -- 7 lal Ν Ν ΄ “ » ’ ad He iT) δύναται ὃ θεῖναι ‘mapa τὸν ὅ κείμενον, ὅς ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς iy tee ἘΝ, Eph. ii. 21 only. (Rom. xiv. 19 reff.) Ezek. xvii. 17. ‘A x ch. i.4 reff. y = Exod. xxxv. 10. zhere only. Isa. iii. 3. Sir. xxxvili. 27. 2 Macc. ii. 29 only. a masc., 2 Tim. 1.19. Rev. xxi. 19. =Rom. xv. 20. Heb. vi. 1. b Luke vi. 48. xiv. 29. c here &c.,4 times. Eph. ii. 20. Col. ii. 7, Jude 20 only. Num, xxxii. 38 Ald.(otx., AB) only. see Rom. xv. 20. d Luke viii. 18. Eph. v. 15. ¢ = Mark xiii. ὃ al. fr. Ἵ r ¥ f = Luke ili.13. Heb. χὶ. 4. 1. 4 al. ἐποίει ἄλλα παρ᾽ ἃ ἐνόμιζεν, Plato, Minos, 320. ἔχομέν τι παρὰ ταῦτα ἄλλο λέγειν, id. Phedo, 80. g Matt, v. 14, 8. om 2nd de C 31 Syr[-ed]. for κοπον, τοπον (Ὁ. 9. aft γεωργιον ins ἐστε D? vulg(not harl?) [Ἐ-1Δ 0] arm Chr, [Pel]. 10. ree τεθεικα, with τέθηκα LP fn 47: txt ABCIN! m! 17 (Chr). for the results of his own labour, so that, though κατὰ τὴν ὑπουργίαν they are one,—kxata τὸ ἔργον (ib.) they are diverse. ‘The stress is twice on ἔδιον. 9.7 Proof of the last assertion, and introduction of Him, from Whom each λήμψεται. The stress thrice on θεοῦ :— shall receive, &c.,—for it is of Gop that we are the fellow-workers (in subordi- nation to Him, as is of course implied : but to render it ‘fellow-workers with one another, under God,’ as Estius pre- fers, and Olsh., al., maintain, is contrary to usage: see reff.;—and not at all re- quired, see 2 Cor. v. 20; vi. 1), of Gop that ye are the tillage, of Gop that ye are the building. This last new similitude is introduced on account of what he has pre- sently to say of the different kinds of teaching, which will be more clearly set forth by this, than by the other figure. 10.1 κατὰ τ. yap. &ec., as an ex- pression of humility (reff.), fitly introduces the σοφός which follows. So Chrys.: ὅρα γοῦν πῶς μετριάζει. εἰπὼν yap σοφὸν ἑαυτόν, οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτοῦ τοῦτο εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλον ἑαυτὸν πρότερον ἀναθεὶς τῷ θεῷ τότε ἑαυτὸν οὕτως ἐκάλεσε. Hom. viii. p. 69. The χάρις is not the peculiar grace of his apostleship—for an apostle was not always required to lay the foundation, e. g. in Rome :—but that given to him in common with all Christians (ver. 5), only in a degree proportioned to the work which God had for him to do. σοφός, skilful, see reff., and many examples in Wetstein. The proof of this skill is given, in his laying a foundation: the unskilful master-builder lays none, see Luke vi. 49. The foundation (ver. 11) was and must be, Jesus Curist: the facts of redemption by Him (obj.), and the reception of Him and His work by faith (subj.). The mascul. form ὁ θεμέλιος (50. λίθος) is said by Thomas Mag. (in Wetst.) to belong to C3DN3 rel [Clem,] Orig,[-c,] (Chr-mss,) Thdrt ΤῊ] Cc, om 2nd δε D Chr Orig{ -int, | Gild. the κοινὴ SiaAexros—the Attic form is θεμέλιον, or, if in the plur., of θεμέλιοι : —oi yap θεμέλιοι παντοίων λίθων ὑπό- κεινται, Thucyd. i. 93. ἄλλος, ‘ who- ever comes after me, —another : not only Apollos. ἐποικοδομεῖ, pres., as the necessary state and condition of the sub- sequent teacher, be he who he may. The building on, over the foundation, imports the carrying them onward in knowledge and intelligent faith. πῶς, emphatic, = here, with what material. De Wette imagines that it also conveys a caution not to alter the foundations, and that the yap in ver. 11 refers to this, But the identity of the foundation is surely implied in ἐποικοδομεῖ. On the γάρ, see below. 11.0. γάρ] q. d. “1 speak of superimposing merely, for it is unnecessary to caution them respecting the foundation itself: there can be but one, and that one HAS ALREADY BEEN (objectively, for all, see below) Larp BY Gop.’ At the same time, in taking this for granted, he implies the strongest pos- sible caution against attempting to lay any other. δύναται, strictly can,—not “η6- mini licet,’ as Grot., al., nor as Theophyl., οὐ δύναται θεῖναι, ἕως ἂν μένῃ σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων, ἐπεὶ ὅταν μὴ ἢ τις σοφ. ἀρχ., δύναται θεῖναι, κ. ἐκ τούτου αἱ αἱρέσει :-- for it is assumed, that θεοῦ οἰκοδομή is to be raised—and it can only be raised on this one foundation. All who build on other foundations are not συνεργοὶ θεοῦ, nor is their building θεοῦ οἰκοδομή at all. ἄλλον ... . παρά, see reff. and ef. Thucyd. i. 28, πυκνότεραι παρὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ πρὶν χρόνου μνημονευόμενα. κείμενον | not, ‘ by me,’ but ‘by God, for universal Christendom ; but actually laid in each place, as regards that church, by the minister who founds it. De Wette denies this universal reference, as introducing a new element into the context. But surely the reference in 6 θεμέλιος ὁ κείμενος ἰδ ABC DL Prabe defgh kilmn 017. 47 9---15. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 4.95 , ¢ > / rn χριστός. 8 εἰ δέ τις “ ἐποικοδομεῖ ἐπὶ τὸν * θεμέλιον nMatt.x.9. Acts xvii. 29, A Lf h " i / i / k 4 J iv. 3. ἱτοῦτον] χρυσὸν, “αἀργυρον, λίθους τιμίους, ξ ὑχῶ πον, , ΄ ©. 4 Se Ven Πρ 'yoptov, ™ καλάμην, 15 ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον " φανερὸν ™ γενή- ἵχ δ 4. xviii. 12,16. xxi.11,19. Ps. xviii. 10. k =here only. Ezra v. 8. iui 7nd only. (Matt. vi. 30 al. fr. Gen. ii. 5.) m here only. Exod. v. 12. xv. 7. Isa. v. 24. ἢ Mark vi. 14. Acts vii. 13. Phil. i. 13. Gem xlii. 16. 11. rec ins o bef χριστος [ with Euthal-ms]: om ABCDLPX rel.—ypior. ino. C3D vulg [F-lat]} syr Orig,[-int, Dial] Chr, Max Damase Hil Jer Ambrst Augsepe Sedul: txt ABLPNX rel Syr [| coptt eth arm] Orig,!-c,-int,] Marcell, Ath, [Eus, Bas, Did, Chr] Arnob: om ina. C!. of ch xii. 3.) (Lhe rec ino. o xp. appears to have been a corrn to give a doctrinal meaning —‘ Jesus (is) the Christ.’ xp. ino. may have had the same intention, 12. om τουτον ABC!N? fuld! sah eth Ambr, ( perhaps from similarity of endgs ; or as unnecessary) : ins C31) LPN3 rel latt syrr copt arm [Bas,] Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] (Ec Orig[-int, Ambrst ] Aug, Jer. (C doubtful.) xpvovoy BR 73 Clem, [ Bas-mss, Epiph, Damasc]. add καὶ Β 73 eth Clem [Orig, ]. αργυριον ΒΟΝ 73 Clem. 13. for εκαστου to γενήσεται, 0 ToLnoas TovTO TO εργον pavepos yernta (see ch v. 2) too direct to the well-known prophecy of the divinely-placed foundation or corner- stone, to surprise any reader or divert his mind from the train of thought bya new element. ᾿Ιησοῦς χριστός, THE PERSONAL, HISTORICAL CHRIST, as the object of all Christian faith. If it be read as in rec., Ἰησοῦς 6 χριστός, it need not necessarily be, that Jesus is the Christ, but may be in this case also, JESUS THE CHRIST; not any doctrine, even that of the Messiahship of Jesus, is the foundation, but Jesus HIMSELF (see var. readd.). 12.] The δέ implies that though there can be but one foundation, there are many ways of building upon it. To the right understanding of this verse it may be necessary to remark, (1) that the similitude is, not of many buildings, as Wetst. and Billroth,—but of one, see ver. 16,—and that [one, | raised on Christ as its founda- tion; —different parts of which are built by the ministers who work under Him,—some well and substantially built, some ill and unsubstantially. (2) That gold, silver, &c., refer to the matter of the ministers’ teach- ing, primarily ; and by inference to those whom that teaching penetrates and builds up in Christ, whoshould be the living stones of the temple: not, as Orig., Chrys., Theo- doret, Theophyl., Phot., Aug., Jer., &e., to the moral fruits produced by the preaching in the individual members of the church, --εἴ τις κακὸν βίον ἔχει μετὰ πίστεως ὀρθῆς, οὐ προστήσεται αὐτοῦ ἣ πίστις εἰς τὸ μὴ κολάζεσθαι, Chrys. Hom. ix. p. 77. (3) That the builder of the worthless and un- substantial zs in the end SAVED (see below) : so that even his preaching was preaching of Christ, and he himself was in earnest, <4) That what is said does not refer, except by accommodation, to the religious life of believers in general—as Olsh., Schrader, see also the anc‘ent Commentators above : —but to the DUTY AND REWARD OF TEACHERS. At thesame time, such accom- modation is legitimate, in so far as each man is a teacher and builder of himself. (5) That the various materials specified must not be fancifully pressed to indicate particular doctrines or araces, as e.g. Schrader has done, ‘‘ Some build with the gold of faith, with the silver of hope, with the imperishable costly stones of love,— others again with the dead wood of unfruit- fulness in good works, with the empty straw of a spiritless, ostentatious knowledge, and with the bending reed of a continually- doubting spirit.”” Der Apostel Paulus, iv. p. 66. This, however ingenious, is beside the mark, not being justified by any indica- tions furnished in our Epistle itself. An elaborate résumé of the very various minor differences of interpretation may be seen in Meyer’s Comm. ed. 2, in loc. Cf. also Kstius’s note; and Stanley’s. λίθους τιμίους Not “ yems,’ but ‘ costly stones,’ as marbles, porphyry, jasper, &c., compare 1 Kings vii. 9 ff. By the ξύλα, χόρτον, καλάμην, he indicates the various per- versions of true doctrine, and admixtures of false philosophy which were current: so Estius, “ doctrina non quidem heretica et perniciosa, talis enim fundamentum de- strueret: sed minus sincera, minusque solida; veluti si sit humanis ac philoso- phicis, aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus ad- inixta plus satis: si curiosa magis quam utilis; si vana quadam oblectatione mentes occupans Christianas.” Comm. i. p. 268 B. 13.] Each man’s work (i. 6. that. which he has built : is part in erecting the οἰκοδομὴ θεοῦ) shall (at some time) be made evident (shall not always remain in the present uncertainty, but be tested, and shewn of what sort itis): for the day shall make it manifest (the day of the Lord, as Vulg., ‘dies domini:’ see reff..—and so most Commentators, ancient and modern. The other interpretations are (1) ‘the day 494 h.iSref. σεται" ἡ Ya © — Ch. 1. ren. 1 Thess. ΒΑ 4. ” Y Heb. x. pch.i. 11 τῆς q=Rom.i.18 ς ὃ ΄ reff. see OKLULaATEL, 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. r Acts xxvi. 29 μησεν, reff. s = Luke xiv. 19. ch. xi. 28. 2Cor. xiii. 5. 1 Pet. 1.1. Zech. xiii. 9. Υ ver. 8. w Matt. iii. 12 }i L. xiii. 30. 10. Rev. viii. 7. Isa. xlvii. 14 A. xix. 19. xxii. 3. D!{and lat] Ambrst. [latt syr coptt eth arm ] (Clem,) Orig,[-c,-int, Cyr-p, [Ambrst]: ins ABC P(avrw) m 17 Syr Orig,[-¢,] Eus, 14. rec επωκοδομησεν, with B?C rel [Orig, ]: of the destruction of Jerusalem,’ which shall shew the vanity of Judaizing doc- trines: so Hammond (but not clearly nor exclusively), Lightf., Schéttg., al..— against both the context, and our Apostle’s habit of speaking, and under the assumption, that nothing but Jewish errors are spoken of :—(2) ‘the lapse of time,’ as in the pro- verb, ‘dies docebit ;}—so Grot., Wolf, Mosheim, Rosenm., al., which is still more inconsistent with the context, which necessitates a definite day, and a definite Sire :—(8) ‘the light of day,’ i.e. of clear knowledge, as opposed to the present time of obscurity and night: so Calv., Beza, Erasm. :—but the fire here is not a light- giving, but a consuming flame; and, as Meyer remarks, even in that case the ἡμέρα would be that of the παρουσία, see Rom. xiii. 12 :—(4) ‘ the day of tribulation ?— so Augustine, Calov.: but this again is not definite enough: μισθὸν λήμψεται can hardly be said of mere abiding the test of tribulation) ;—because it (the day—not, the work, as Theophyl., Ecum., al., which would introduce a mere tautology with the next clause) is (to be) revealed (the pre- sent ἀποκαλύπτεται expresses the definite certainty of prophecy: or perhaps rather the attribute of that day, which is, to be revealed, &., as in the expressions 6 πει- ράζων, 6 σπείρων, ἄς.) in fire (‘accom- panied,’ ‘clothed,’ ‘ girt,’ ‘ with fire;’ i. e fire will be the element in which the day will be revealed. Cf. 2 Thess. i. 8, and Mal. iii. 2, 3, iv. 1, to which latter place the reference is,—see LXX. But notice, that this is not the fire of hell, into which the gold, silver, and costly stones will never enter, but the fire of judyment, in which Christ will appear, and by which all works will be tried. This univer- sality of trial by fire is equally against the idea of a purgatorial fire, which lucrative fiction has been mainly based by the Romanists on a perversion of this passage. See Aug. de Civ. Dei, xxi. 26. 4, vol. vii. p. 745, who mentions the idea with ‘non redarguo, ouia forsitan verum ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOT®S A. ᾿ μισθὸν λήμψεται. } ' θή ιυὐτὸς δὲ σωθή ¥ οὕ δὲ καήσεται, * ζημιωθήσεται' αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, " οὕτως δὲ u vv. 10, 12. IT. ΠῚ « / Ρ ’ “ > q 3 ἡμέρα δηλώσει, STL ἐν πυρι 3 ἀποκα- ΄ Nien 2 \ Ν viz Ae 3 \ a a PR a bic λύπτεται, καὶ ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον " ὁποῖόν ἐστιν TO πῦρ αὐτὸ 14. ” X ΝΜ εἰ τινος τὸ ἔργον t μενεῖ ὃ ἃ ἐποικοδό- 15 εἴ Σ w εἰ τινος TO Epryov KaTa- t= Rom. ix. 11 reff. Acts xix. 198]. Gen xxxviii. 24. form also, 2 Pet. tii: x Matt. xvi. 26 ||. 2Cor. vii 9. Phil. iii. 8 only. Prov. y ch. iv. 1. ix. 26. Eph. τ. 33. James ii. 12. recom αὐτὸ (as unnecessary: but see note), with DLN rel Damasc} Chr-mss, Thdrt, Thl He Bas[ -2- mss, ] Chr *Thdrt, Procop,. txt AB!DLEN [π 17 '[Bas, ]. est.’ See Estius, who does not main- tain the allusion to Purgatory here; and Bisping, who does), and each man’s work, of what kind it is, the fire itself shall try (this clause does not depend upon ὅτι, but ranges with the following futures. It is a question whether ἔργον is nom. or acc.,—of what kind each man’s work is (Meyer),—or as above. In the only other places where Paul uses ὁποῖος, Gal. ii. 6, 1 Thess. i. 9 (see also Acts xxvi. 29), it commences a clause, as here if ἔργον be accus.;—we have a very similar expression, Gal. vi. 4, τὸ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμαζέτω ἕκαστος :—and it seems more natural that the action of the fire should be described as directly passing upon the work. For these reasons, I prefer the accus. τὸ πῦρ αὐτό, the fire itself, of its own power, being a πῦρ καταναλίσ- κον. 14. If any man’s work shall remain (i.e. stand the fire,—being of inconsumable materials. μενεῖ fut. (so latt syrr coptt), is better than the pres. of rec., as answering to ei... . κατα- καήσεται below), which he built on the foundation,—he shall receive wages (as a builder ;—i. e. ‘shall be rewarded for his faithful and effectual work as a teacher’): 15.] if any man’s work shall be burnt up (i. 6. consist of such materials as the fire will destroy: Stanley adds, “It is possible that this whole image, as addressed to the Corinthians, may have been suggested, or at least illustrated, by the comlagr ation of Corinth under Mum- mius: the stately temples (one of them remaining to this day) left standing amidst the universal crash and destruction of the meaner buildings”), he shall { suffer loss (literally,) be muleted. (ημιωθ., scil. τὸν μισθόν, see ref. Matt., and Herod. vii. 39, Tov δὲ ἑνός, τοῦ περιέχεαι μάλιστα, THY ψυχὴν ζημιώσεαι, and Plato, Legg., vi. p. 774, εἰς μὲν οὖν χρήματα ὃ μὴ θέλων γαμεῖν τοσαῦτα ζημιούσθω) : but he him- self shall be saved (having held, and built on, the true foundation Jesus Christ, he shall not be exeluded from that salva- ABCDL defgh kKlmn o 17. 47 Pe F[-gr] (and also G)ovxer.. ABCDF ΠΡ ἃ Ὁ οἀεοῖρσ hklm nol7. 47 14—17, Υ ὡς ? διὰ πυρός. \ Ν A “ θ lal c » ὅν. | id “ 17 yy Ν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ ° οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν ; 17 εἴ τις τὸν n “ ΄ an a ¢e ΄ id rn τοῦ θεοῦ 4 φθείρει, ἃ φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ θεός" ὁ yap " ναὸς TOD » 16. (2 Thess. ii.4al.) Jer. vii. 4. bis. ch. xv. : 16. play on word, ch. vi. 12. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 33. 2 Cor. vii. 2. xi. 3. Eph. iv. 22. 2 Pet. ii. 12. 495 16 4 ovK *oldate ὅτι ὃ vaos θεοῦ ἐστε zsee Isa. li Zech. xii’ \ 9. vaov a Rom. vi. 16. ch. v. 6 al. = ch. vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. d = here Isa. liv. b ce Rom. vii. 17 reff. Jude 10, Rev. xix. 2 only. 16. ev υμιν bef ome: BP m 17 [Bas, ] (Tert,). 17. for φθερει, φθειρει Di -gr] F[-gr] Ρ 47 am: φθειρεῖ L. for τουτον, avTov (corrn as more usual) ADF Syr syr-mg arm [Orig-c,], iJlwm latt Iren-int, [Orig-int, Tert, Hil,] Cypr,: txt BCLP® rel syr[-txt] coptt eth Orig{-c,] Eus, Mac, Did, Amphil, Chr, [Cyr-p; Damasc] Thdrt ΤῊ] Cc. tion which is the free gift of God to all who believe on Christ, but shall get no especial reward as a faithful and effectual teacher. Cf. 2 John 8, βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσητε ἃ εἰργασάμεθα, ἀλλὰ μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβητε. Meyer remarks, that our Lord hints at such persons under the name of ἔσχατοι, Matt. xx. 16; Mark x. 31), but so, as through fire :—i.e. as a builder whose building was consumed would escape with personal safety, but with the loss of his work. Chrys., Theophyl., (c., strangely understand it, that he shall be burnt for ever in the fire of Hell, unconsumed : οὐχὶ καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτως ἀπολεῖται ὡς τὰ ἔργα, εἰς τὸ μηδὲν χωρῶν" ἀλλὰ μενεῖ ἐν τῷ πυρί, Chrys. σώζεται, τουτέστι, σῶος τηρεῖται. δίκας αἰωνίους ὑπέχων, Theophyl. But (1) the fire of Hell is quite alien from the context (see above),—and (2) the meaning given to σώζεσθαι is unexampled,—and least of all could be intended where the coming of the Lord is spoken of: cf. inter alia, ch. v. 5, παραδοῦναι x.T.A..... ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τ. κυρίου. Grot., Elsn., al., explain ὡς διὰ πυρός as a pro- verb, ‘tanquam ex incendio, for ‘ with difficulty.’ But this is needless here, as the figure itself is that of an ‘incendium :’ and ὡς is not ‘tanguam, but belongs to οὕτως, see reff. The whole imagery of the passage will be best understood by carefully keeping in mind the sey, which is to be found in the θεοῦ οἰκοδομή, and the ναὸς θεοῦ, as connected with the prophecy of Malachi iii.andiv. There, ἐξαίφνης ἥξει eis τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ κύριος... .. αὐτὸς εἰς- πορεύεται ὡς πῦρ χωνευτηρίου..... καθιεῖται χωνεύων καὶ καθαρίζων ὡς τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ ὡς τὸ χρυσίον. .. .. διότι ἰδοὺ ἡμέρα (add κυρίου A) ἔρχεται καιομένη ws κλίβανος, κ. φλέξει αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσονται... καλάμη, K. ἀνάψει αὐτοὺς ἡ ἡμέρα ἣ ἐρχομένη. The Lord thus coming to His temple in flaming fire, all the parts of the building which will not stand that fire will be consumed: the builders of them will escape with personal salvation, but with the loss of their work, through the midst of the conflagration. 16—23.] The figure is taken up afresh and carried further: and made the occasion of solemn exhortation, since they were the temple of God, not to mar that temple, the habitation of His Spirit, by unholiness, or by exaltation of human wisdom: which last again was irrelevant, as well as sinful; for all their teachers were but their servants in building them up to be God’s temple,—yea all things were for this end, to subserve them, as being Christ’s, by the ordinance, and to the glory of God the Father. 16. } The foregoing figures, with the occasion to which they referred, are now dropped, and the οἰκοδομὴ θεοῦ recalled, to do fur- ther service. This budding is now, as in Mal. iii. 1, and as indeed by implication in the foregoing verses, the temple of God (ναὸς θεοῦ, with emphasis on ναός, not θεοῦ vads), the habitation of His Spirit. οὐκ οἴδατε 6t1—Are ye ignorant that... an expression of surprise arising out of their conduct. kat... ἐν ὑμῖν-Ξ ἐν ᾧ, τουτ- έστιν, ἐν ὑμῖν. Meyer rightly remarks, that “ ναὸς θεοῦ is the temple of God, not ὦ temple of God: for Paul does not conceive (as Theodoret, al.) of the various churches as various temples of God, which would be inconsistent with a Jew’s conception of God’s temple, but of each Christian church as, sensu mystico, the temple of Jehovah. So there would be, not many temples, but many churches, each of which is, ideally, the same temple of God.” And, we may add, if the figure is to be strictly justified in its widest acceptation, that all the churches are built together into one vast temple: cf. ἐν @ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε, Eph. ii. 22. 17. ] φθείρει, [destroys, or] mars, whether as regards its unity and beauty, or its purity and sanctity: here, the meaning is left indefinite, but the latter particulars are certainly hinted at,—by ἅγιος below. φθερεῖ, either by temporal death (Mey.), as in ch. xi. 30; or by spiritual death, which is more probable, seeing that the figurative temple is spoken of, not (as Mey.) the material temple :—and as tem- 490 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. IIT. 18—23. a ev , > PN ΄ 3° ΄ a 18 ὃ \ ε «— Rom. vi.2. θεοῦ ἅγιός ἐστιν, © οἰτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς. μηδεὶς εαυτὸν { Rom. vii. 11 A \ > eon ef, ἐἐξαᾳπατάτω' εἴ τις ὅ δοκεῖ σοφὸς εἶναι ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ Ε τίς ἼΛΗΣ: “Ἃ he 2 ἢ ΄ i \ t 6 , , 19 ἡ a ae αἰῶνι ἢ τούτῳ, * μωρὸς γενέσθω, ἵνα γένηται σοφύς. n Phil. iii. 4. = ͵ ; : ͵ \ aA γι damesi.26. yap σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου * μωρία 'παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ = om. ΧΕΙ, \ e s \ Re 5 ἐστιν. γέγραπται yap ™‘O "δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν ich. i. 25 ae! k ch. i. 18 reff. a 7, 2 A \ ΄, 7, , \ Kom. ἢ. 13. TH “ πανουργίᾳ αὐτῶν. 20 καὶ πάλιν Κύριος γινώσκει τοὺς al. Bile al. = τι > ‘ , Ψ m Jons.3 (but P διαλογισμοὺς τῶν σοφῶν “ ὅτι εἰσὶν " μάταιοι. 21 5 ὥςτε . ‘ / 5 / / \ e -“ 3 ἀσαξῆόται μηδεὶς ' καυχάσθω * ἐν ἀνθρώποις: πάντα γὰρ " ὑμῶν ἐστιν, ἢ pare ἢ 2. ν. 12. Num. τ. 26. (Ps. ii. 13, w. gen.) Herod. iii. 13. Jos. Β. J. iii. 8. 6. Dion. Hal. ix. 21. o (=) Luke xx. 23. 2 Cor. iv. 2. xi. 3. Eph. iv. 14 only. Josh. ix. 4 (10). (-yos, 2 Cor. xii. 16.) p = Rom. 1.21. James ii. 4. Psa. xciii. 11. q constr., ch. xvi. 15 al. fr. Winer, edn. 6,$ 66. 5. a. r Acts xiv 15. ch. xv. 17. Tit. iii. 9. James i. 26. 1 Pet. i. 18 only. Exod. xx. 7. ΞΘ ch; iv.o. teh. i. 31. Rom. ii. 17 reff. ugen.,ch.i.12. Rom. xiv. 8. 2 Tim. ii. 19. 18. aft ekamatatw [amatatw 47] ins κενοῖς Aoyors (see Eph v. 6) D 23-marg. 73. 118. ev vu. εἰναι goo. P. 19. rec ins tw bef θεω (corrn: but art is unnecessary aft prepn), with ABLPN rel Orig, Dion, Eus, Chr, [Euthal-ms Damasc] Thdrt : om CDF b! ο Clem, Orig,[-c,]. om yap [)} -gr]. om ὁ and tous F. [πανουργει F. | 21. av@pwrw F | Tert, Ambrst Aug, | (not Pel Bede). poral death was the punishment for de- filing the material temple (Exod. xxviii. 43. Levit. xvi. 2 al. fr.), so spiritual death for marring or defiling of God’s spiritual tem- ple. ἅγιος, the constant epithet of ναός in the O. 'T., see Ps. ν. 7; x. 5 (LXX). Hab. ii. 20, and»passim. οἵτινες, 1. 6. ἅγιοι, not, ‘which temple are ye. which would be tautological after ver. 16, and would hardly be expressed by οἵτινες, ‘ ut qui,’ or ‘quales.’ Meyer well remarks, that οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς is the minor proposition of a syllogism : —‘ Whoever mars the tem- ple of God, him will God destroy, because His temple is holy ; but ye also, as His ideal temple, are holy :—therefore, whoever mars you, shall be destroyed by God.’ 18—20.] 4 warning to those who would be leaders among them, against self- conceit, 18.1 ἐξαπατάτω, not, as Theophyl., νομίζων ὅτι ἄλλως ἔχει τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ οὐχ ὡς εἶπον :---ἰῦ is far more naturally referred to what follows, viz. thinking himself wise, when he must be- come a fool in order to be wise. If any man [seemeth to be(i.e., |] thinks that he is) wise amoung you in this world (ἐν τῷ ai. τούτῳ belongs to δοκεῖ aod. εἶν. ἐν ὑμ., —to the whole assumption of wisdom made by the man, which as made in this present world, must be false: not (1) merely to σοφός, Grot., Riickert, al.,—as the arrangement of the words shews,— nor (2) to μωρὸς γενέσθω, Orig., Chrys., Luther, Rosenm., al., in which ease, the stress being on μωρός, it must have been μωρὸς γενέσθω ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι ToUTw), let him become a fool (by receiving the gospel in its simplicity, and so becoming foolish in the world’s sight), that he may become (truly) wise. 19.| Reason why this must be :—shewn from Scripture. παρὰ 8., in the judgment of God, reff. ὁ ὅρασσ.] The sense of the Heb. is equally expressed by the Apostle and the LXX. The words are taken out of the context as they stand, which accounts for the partici- ple, see Heb. i. 7. The sense is, ‘ If God uses the craft of the wise as a net to catch them in, such wisdom is in His sight folly, since He turns it to their confusion.’ “δρασσόμενος (possibly a provincialism) is substituted for καταλαμβάνων, as a stronger and livelier expression for ‘ grasping,’ or * catching with the hand.’” Stanley. Cf. Judith xiii. 7. 20.| The LXX have ἀνθρώπων (Heb. Dix); the Psalmist how- ever is speaking of the proud, ver. 2 f:, and such, when διαλογισμοί are in question, would be the worldly wise. 21—23. ] A warning to them in general, not to boast themselves in human teachers. 21. ὥςτε. viz seeing that this world’s wisdom is folly with God: or perhaps as a more general inference from what has gone be- fore since ch. i., that as the conclusion there was, 6 καυχώμενος, ἐν κυρίῳ kav- xd00w,—so now, having gone into the matter more at length, he concludes, μηδεὶς καυχάσθω ἐν ἀνθρώποις. This boasting in men is explained in ch. iv. 6 to mean μὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθαι κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέ- ρου. καυχάσθω after ὥςτε isa change of construction. A somewhat similar change occurred in the parallel ch. i. 31, Wa..-- καυχάσθω : but there, by the citation being adduced in its existing form. πάντα yap up. éor.| ‘For such boasting is ἃ degradation to those who are heirs of all things, aud for whom all, whether minis- ABCDF LPxab edefg hklim nolj. 47 bs al ΚοΣ 22 ν πάντα “dpov, * ὑμεῖς δὲ ἃ χριστοῦ, χριστὸς δὲ " θεοῦ. ΙΝ. 1 *Odtws ἡμᾶς “λογιζέσθω "ἡ ἄνθρωπος, " ὡς ° ὑπηρέτας χριστοῦ καὶ ἃ οἰκονόμους “ μυστηρίων θεοῦ. b = ch. xi. 28. Gal. vi. 1. xii. 42. xvi. 1, &c.) i. 16 reff, e ch. ii. 7 reff. 22. ἀπολλω F 17. 48 Orig,. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. , A » » an εἴτε Παῦλος εἴτε ᾿Απολλὼς εἴτε Κηφᾶς, Vg \ Μ ΄ 2 a εἴτε “ ζωὴ εἴτε ἡ θάνατος, εἴτε “* ἐνεστῶτα εἴτε *Y μέλλοντα, c = Acts xiii. 5 reff. ins 6? bef ὑμων ΕἾ -»Υ]. rec at end ins ἐστιν, with D*3L rel vulg [F-lat syrr copt arm Orig,-int, | 497 v / ELTE KOO LLOS v so Rom. xii. 6. Col.i. 16 w 80 Rom. vii. 38 x see 2 Thess. ii. 2. y = Acts xxiv. 25 reff. ἣς Zz bis 15 ΔῊΝ κα reff, 2 ὧδε 8 λοι- a Rom. viii. 36 reff. ix. 8. ἃ = Tit.i.7. 1 Pet.iv. 10. (Luke f = Col. iv. 9. Heb. xiii. 14. δ ch. μων, and in ver. 23 ques B Chr, Thdrt [Tert,]: om ABC D![and lat] F[-gr] PX 17 [eth] Dial, Ambrst Aug). Crap. LV. 1. ins του bef θεου F. 2. rec ὃ de λοιπον, with D?[-gr] L rel Orig ters, or events, or the world itself, are working together: see Rom. viii. 28: and iv. 13. 22, 28.) Specification of some of the things included under πάντα : and Jirst of those teachers in whom they were disposed to boast,—in direct reference to ch. i. 12. But having enumerated Paul, Apollos, Cephas, he does not say εἴτε χρι- ods, but adding the world itself and its events and circumstances, he reiterates the πάντα ὑμῶν as if to mark the termination of this category, and changing the form, concludes with ὑμεῖς δὲ (not only one part of you) χριστοῦ" χριστὸς δὲ θεοῦ (see below). The expressions ζωή, θάνατος, ἐνεστῶτα, μέλλοντα, have nothing to do with the teachers, as Chrys., Theophyl., Grot..—7 (wh, φησι, τῶν διδασκάλων δι ὑμᾶς ἔστιν ἵνα ὠφελῆσθε διδασκόμενοι" κ. ὁ θάνατος αὐτῶν δι᾽ tuas* ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν γὰρ κινδυνεύουσι καὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας, Theophyl.,—and “ presentia, ... lingua- rum etsanationum dona... . futura,.... rerum futurarum revelationes,’ Grot.,— but are perfectly general. ἐνεστῶτα is things actually present,—see note on 2 Thess. ii. 2. 23.] On the change of the possessives, see above :—Christ is not yours, in the sense in which πάντα are,— not made for and subserving you—but (δέ) you are His,—and even that does not reach the Highest possession: He possesses not you for Himself; but (δέ again) κεφαλὴ χριστοῦ ὃ θεός, ch. xi. 3. Curist Him- SELF, the Incarnate God the Mediator, belongs to God, is subordinate to the Father, see John xiv. 28; and xvii. pas- sim. But this mediatorial subordination is in no way inconsistent with His eternal and co-equal Godhead: see notes on Phil. ii. 6—9; and on ch. xv. 28, where the sub- jection of all things to Christ, and His subjection to the Father, are similarly set forth. There is a striking similarity in the argument in this last verse to that in our Lord’s prohibition, Matt. xxiii. VoL. ἘΠ. oL-¢, ] Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] Ge: txt ABCD!FPR 8—10. See Stanley’s beautiful note. IV. 1—5.] He shews them the right view to take of Christian ministers (vv. 1, 2); but, fur his part, regards not man’s gudgment of him, nor even judges himself, but the Lord is his Judge (vv. 3, 4). Therefore let them also suspend their judgments till the Lord’s coming, when all shall be made plain. 1.1 οὕτως, emphatic, preparatory to ὡς, as in ref. ἄνθρωπος, as Εἰ. V., a man, in the most general and indefinite sense, as ‘man’ in German: not a Hebraism, nor = ἕκαστος. The whole is opposed to καύχησις ἐν ἀνθρώποις : the ministers of Christ are but subordinates to Him, and accountable to God. ἡμᾶς, here, not, ‘us ministers generally, see below, ver. 6, but ‘myself and Apollos, as a sample of such. ὑπηρ χριστοῦ, see ch. ili. 5, 22, 28. But in οἶκον. μυστ. θεοῦ we have a new figure introduced. The Church, 1 Tim. iii. 15, is the οἶκος 6eov—and those appointed to minister in it are οἰκονόμοι, stewards and dispensers of the property and stores of the οἰκοδεσ- πότης. These last are the μυστήρια, hid- den treasures, of God,—i.e. the riches of his grace, now manifested in Christ, ch. ii. 7; Rom. xvi. 25, 26, which they an- nounce and distribute to all, having re- ceived them from the Spirit for that pur- pose. “ Ea mysteria sunt incarnationis, passionis et resurrectionis Christi, redemp- tionis nostre, vocationis gentium, et cetera que complectitur evangelica doctrina”’ Estius, who also, as a Romanist, attempts to include the sacraments among the μυσ- τήρια in this sense. The best refutation of this is given by himself: “sed cum ipse Paulus dixerit primo capite, Non misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare, rec- tius est ut mysteria Dei intelligantur fidei nostre dogmata.’ It may be doubted, whether, in the N. JT. sense of μυστήρια, the sicraments can be in any way reckoned k kK 4.98 “~ » » τ 2 0ον. xii, πὸν » ζητεῖται ἐν τοῖς 3 ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ A. Iv. , U / ; ? A οἰκονόμοις ἵνα πιστός τις | εὑρεθῇ. 3. (ch. i. 22.) \ Ἢ ᾽ , , ᾽ ” > A ᾽ aA i=Mattiis. 3 Κ ἐμοὶ δὲ leis ἐλάχιστόν eoTW™ ἵνα Ud ὑμῶν " ἀνακριθῶ cts V. = 7 A \ , e ͵ > ’ 58. Ν Rom. vito ἢ ὑπτὸ 5 ἀνθρωπίνης Ῥ ἡμέρας" 4 ἀλλ᾽ 4 οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν " ἀνα- Phil. ii. 8. , 4. > \ εἶ ᾽ A r ΄ 5 » >] 3 ᾽ ΄ , ον, χ.8. μρυνῶ" οὐδὲν yap ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ 5 ἐν τούτῳ 7 at., om. i / e \ > ͵ ΄ ͵ o ι χάδια, ἣ δεδικαίωμαι ὁ δὲ “avaxpiwwv με κύριός ἐστιν. 5 "ὥςτε 27. τὴ constr., Matt. x. 25. xviii. 6. n Acts iv. 9 reff. o Acts xvii. 25 reff. p = ch. i. 8 reff. q = Acts xix. 2. ch. ill. r Acts v. s Acts xiii. 39. Rom. v. ‘7 ch. vi. Il. 17 latt syrr copt eth arm Orig-int, [Ambrst Aug, ]. N-corr! 9). txt BL rel latt syrr [copt Orig,-c,-int, }. bef πιστος D2{-gr] F goth. 3. ἡμῶν A [ο]. αλλα D!, 4. for οὐκ, ovde P [nec Jer, Aug, ]. Geos D'[and lat]. as such: for μυστ. is a (usually divine) proceeding, once hidden, but now revealed, or now hidden, and to be revealed ; under neither of which categories can the sacra- ments be classed. 2.] Moreover, here (on earth) (see var. readd. and reff. ὧδε is emphatic, and points to what follows, that though in the case of stewards enquiry was necessarily made here below, yet he, God’s steward, awaited no such enquiry ὑπὸ ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας, but one at the coming of the Lord. Lachmann, I cannot but think somewhat strangely, places ὧδε at the end of ver. 1: οἰκονόμους μυστηρίων Oeod ὧδε. Stanley takes ὧδε for ‘in this matter,’ and supports the meaning by Rev. xiii. 10, 18; xiv. 12; xvii. 9) enquiry is made in the case of stewards (or, ἐέ is required in the case of stewards), in order that (or that, the purport of the requirement expressed as its purpose) a man may be found (proved to be) faithfus (emph.). 8.1 But to me (contrast to the case of the stewards into whose faithfulness enquiry is made ὧδε, here on earth) it 15 (amounts to) very little (Meyer compares és χάριν τέλλεται, Pind. ΟἹ. i. 122, and Theognis, 162, οἷς τὸ κακὸν δοκέον γίγνεται eis ἀγαθόν) that I [should] be (the ἵνα, here and always, is more or less the conj. of purpose. The construction is a mixed one in such clauses as this, compounded of ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν ἀνακριθῆναι, and ἐλαχίστου ἂν πριαίμην, ἵνα ἀνακριθῶ) judged (enquired into, as to my faithfulness) by you, or by the day of man ([1. 6., of man’s judgment, | in refer- ence to ὧδε above, and contrast to the ἡμέρα κυρίου, to which his appeal is pre- sently made, ver. 5, and of which, as testing the worth of the labour of teachers, he spoke so fully ch. iii. 13—15. Jerome, Queestiones ad Algasiam, Ep. xxxi. (cli.) 10, vol. i, p. 879, numbers the expression among the cilicisms of the Apostle. Estius, 2. xii. 12. xiv. 6 only. Lev. v. 1. Gal. ii. 17. iii. 11. v. 4. Job xxvii. 6 only. 1 Macc. iv. 21 al. t= ch. iil. 21. aft Aoroy ins Tt X!(om (ntetre (itacism ?) AC D[-gr] F[-gr(-tyre)] PN f g n 17 [Eutha lms]: τις evpeOn bef moros D'3f-gr]: [τις] for ovde, ovd F. for δε, yap NX! Syr eth. at end ins al., suppose it to be a Hebraism, referring to Jer. xvii. 16, which is irrelevant. Alli these are probably wrong, and the expres- sion chosen purposely by the Apostle. Grot. compares ‘diem dicere,’ ‘ to cite to trial ;) to which Stanley adds the English ‘daysman’ for arbiter (see Job ix. 33), and the Dutch ‘dagh vaerden’ and ‘ daghen,’ to ‘summon ’),—nay, I do not judge even (hold not au enquiry on: lit. ‘but neither do I, &c.) myself: 4.| for I [know nothing against myself (1. 6.}1 am con- scious to myself of no (official) delinquency ; so Plato, Apol. p. 21, οὔτε μέγα οὔτε σμικρὸν ξύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ σοφὸς Sv,—ib., Rep. i. (Wetst.), τῷ δὲ μηδὲν ἑαυτῷ ἀδίκων ξυνει- δότι ἡδεῖα ἐλπὶς ἀεὶ πάρεστι, and Hor., Epist. i. 1. 61, ‘Nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa.’ The Εἰ. V., ‘I know nothing by myself,’ was a phrase commonly used in this acceptation at the time; cf. Ps. xv. 4, Com. Prayer Book version, ‘ He that setteth not by himself, i.e. is not wise in his own conceit. ‘1 know no harm by him’ is still a current expression in the midland counties. See Deut. xxvii 16; Ezek. xxii. 7, in E. V. So Donne, Serm. lvii., “ If thine own spirit, thine own con- science, accuse thee of nothing, is all well ? why, I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified.” This meaning of ‘by’ does not appear in our ordinary dic- tionaries), but I am not hereby justified (i.e. it is not this circumstance which clears me of blame—this does not decide the matter. There can be no reference (as Meyer) to forensie justification here, by the very conditions of the context: for he is speaking of that μισθός of the teacher, which may be lost, and yet personal salva- tion be attained, see ch. iii. 15); but he that judges (holds an enquiry on) me is the Lord (Christ, the judge). 5. | So then (because the Lord is the soie infallible dijudicator) decide nothing (con- ABCDF LPxNab cedefg hkimn ο 17. 47 3—6. ITPOS KOPIN@IOT® A. 4.99 7. e / A \ ἔλθῃ ὁ κύριος, OF καὶ u Matt. viii ἊΣ ; κ 29 only. Sir. καὶ * φανερωσει TAS , ἜΣ tim. i. av b / 10 only. Jos. ἔπαινος " γενήσεται \ ΠῚ \ u A / “ xX μὴ ἃ πρὸ " καιροῦ TL κρίνετε, ἕως ἂν / \ A ἡ φωτίσει τὰ “ κρυπτὰ τοῦ σκότους \ la) a 3% βουλὰς τῶν * καρδιῶν, Kal τότε ὁ Antt. viii. 5. nae ieee hi 3. (Johni. ἑκάστῳ ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. 9.81.) _ τ al / ? / fi > > \ \ eo wid 6 Ταῦτα δέ, ἀδελφοί, ° μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν Kal x Kom.i.19 4 \ Sy ie. ἃ 4 > econ , x reff. Απολλὼ δι’ ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἃ ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε © τὸ μὴ ἴ ὑπὲρ ἃ yplur., here xxii. δ al. 2 Sir. xxxvii. 13. a Rom. ii. 29 (reff.). bch. i. 30 reff. c 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14,15. Phil. iii. 21 only+. 1 Kings xxviii.8 Symm. Jos. Antt. vii. 10. 5. = John xiii. 35.. Gen. xlii. 33. e = Rom. viii. 26 reff. f= ch.x.13. 2 Cor. xii. 6. 5. κρινεταν (itacism ?) APN 3. 17. 39. 48. 72. (ins). om last του D 1. 6. om δὲ N}(ins X-corr!) arm. om εἰς F[-gr]. 2) XN}: txt CDFLP N-corr!(?)3 rel [ Euthal-ms ]. ev υμιν D!(and lat?] 1 17. 28. 115 syr copt Chr,[txt,] Antch,. om To F 2. rec (for &) 6, with DFL rel Syr goth arm Chr, Thdrt [Cyr-p, Damasc]: txt ABCPX 17 syr copt Ath, Chr-ms, Cyr[-p,]. (Meyer and De W. think that & has been a corrn to suit ravta preceding. But I can hardly think this probable: is it not more likely that in a proverbial om os D! [and lat | F AUgszne απολλων A B} (amo πολλων exprn the sing seemed most appropriate, and thus & has been corrd to 6?) cerning us, of merit or demerit) before the time, until the Lord shall have come (explains mpd καιρ.), Who shall also (καί, tater alia: as part of the proceedings of that Day: or both) bring to light (throw light on) the hidden things of darkness (general— all things which are hidden in darkness), and shall make manifest the counsels of the hearts (then first shewing, what your teachers really are, in heart), and then shall the (fitting) praise accrue to each from God. media, praise or blame, as the case may be, but strictly praise. Theophyl., Grot., Billr., Riick., Olsh., suppose the word to be used euphemistically, ‘‘ unde et con- trarium datur intelligi, sed mavult ev- φημεῖν, Grot.: Calv., Meyer, al., think that he speaks without reference to those who will obtain no praise: “ hee vox ex bone conscientiz fiducia nascitur.” Calv. But I agree with De Wette, in thinking that he refers to καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ἀνθρώποις: —they. their various parties, gave erag- gerated praise to certain teachers: let them wait till the day when the fitting praise (be it what it may) will be ad- judged to each from God; Christ as the Judge being the ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κριτής, Acts x. 42, and so His sentences being amd θεοῦ. See also Acts xvii. 31, and Rom. ii. 16, κρινεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ... διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. 6—13.] He explains to them (ver. 6) that the mention hitherto of him- self and Apollos (and by parity of reason- ing, of Cephas and of Christ, in ch. i. 12) has a more general design, viz. to ab- stract them fron all party spirit and pride: which pride he then blames, and puts to shame by depicting, as a contrast, the low and offlicted state of the Apostles Kx ἔπαινος is not a vor — themselves. 6.] But (transeuntis: he comes to the conclusion of what he has to say on their party divisions) these things (De Wette, Meyer, al., limit ταῦτα to what has been said since ch. iii. 5. But there surely is no reason for this. The Apostle’s meaning here must on all hands be acknow- ledged to be, ‘I have taken our two names as samples that you may not attach your- selves to and be proud of any party leaders, one against another.’ And if these two names which had been last mentioned, why not analogously, those four which he had also alleged in ch. i. 12 ? There can be no reason against this, except the determina- tion of the Germans to regard their Paulus- parthei, and Apollos-parthei, and Petrus- parthei, and Christus-parthei, as historical facts, and consequent unwillingness to part with them here, where the Apostle himself by implication repudiates them as such) I transferred (the epistolary aorist) to myself and Apollos (i.e. when I might have set them before you generally and in the ab- stract as applying to all teachers, I have preferred doing so by taking two samples, and transferring to them what was true of the whole. This is far more probable than the explanation of Chrys., al., that he put in his own name and that of Apollos instead of those of the real leaders of sects, conceal- ing them on purpose. On μετασχ., ser reff. and cf. Plato, Legg. x. p. 903, μετασχηματίζων τὰ πάντα οἷον ἐκ πυρὸς ὕδωρ,---πα p. 906, τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα μετ- εσχηματισμένον, Meyer) on your account, that ye by us (as your example: by having our true office and standing set before you) might learn this, ‘‘ Not above those things which are written” (i. 6. not to exceed in your estimate of yourselves and us, the standard of Serip- 9 «- 500 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. f ao ee, τε -ἃ n gw.indic. γεγρῶπται, " va μὴ “εἰς ὑπερ του pres., Gal. tv. vm ἈΝ : iid. K σοὶ : Sain oa. TOU ETEPOV. h 1 Thess. v. 11. i vv. 18, 19. ch. v. 2. viii. 1. xili. 4. Col. ii. 18 onlyt. (-wots, 2 Cor. xii. 20.) m absol., ch. i. 29 reff. 17,18. Luke xii. 21. n Acts xxvii. 38 only. Hos. xii. 8. rec aft yeyparra ins dpovew, with C(appy) D3{-gr}] LPN rel syrr goth arm Chr;. "ἢ δ ἑνὸς ᾿ φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ q ee \ \ 16 / 2 f δὲ v ἃὰ ᾽ τίς γὰρ σὲ | διακρίνει ; τί δὲ ἔχεις ὃ οὐκ » \ \ Μ / lal ΄ , ἔλαβες ; εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔλαβες, τί ™Kavyaoar ὡς μὴ λαβών ; ΄ , / ΄ -“ 8 ἤδη " κεκορεσμένοι ἐστέ, ἤδη ° ἐπλουτήσατε, χωρὶς ἡμῶν k Rom. ii. 1 reff. Deut. xxxi. 20 only. 1 = here only. see Acts xv. 9 reff. ο 2 Cor. viii. 9. Rev. iti. Cyr{-p,] Thdrt [Antch, Damase]: om ABD!FR! latt Orig[-c, Ambrst Aug]. om 2nd μη D. for ὑπερ, κατα F. ture,—which had been already in part shewn to them in the citations ch. i. 19, 31; iii. 19. To refer γέγραπται to what has been written in this Epistle, as Luth., Calov., Calv. (altern.), is quite inadmissible, for, as Grot. remarks, “ γέγραπται in his libris semper ad libros Veteris Testamenti refertur.” But he (and Olsh.) refer the words to Deut. xvii. 20,—whereas it is far better to give them a perfectly general re- ference. Chrys., Theodoret, and Theophyl. refer it to words of our Lord inthe N. T., such as Matt. vii. 1, 3; xxiii. 12; Mark x. 43, 44, but these could not be indicated by yéypanrai,—ef. ch. vii. 10 and note. The ellipsis, as here, of the verb in prohibi- tory clauses, with μή, is common enough: thus, Aristoph. Vesp. 1179, μή μοί γε μύθους. Soph. Antig. 577, μὴ τριβὰς ἔτι, ἀλλά νιν κομίζετ᾽ εἴσω. Demosth. Phil. i. p- 46, μή μοι μυρίους μηδὲ διεμυρίους ξένους. Hartung, Partikellehre ii. 153, where see more examples), that ye may not one on behalf of another be puffed up against a third (i. 6. ‘that you may not adhere to- gether in parties to the detriment or dis- paragement of a neighbour who is attached to a different party’). There is a gram- matical difficulty here, the occurrence of ἵνα with an indic. pres. This is variously explained. See Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 41. ὃ. 1. c. Some suppose that here, and in ref. Gal. St. Paul has commited a philological error in the formation of the subjunctive, and written the indic. for it. It is at least remarkable, that that other instance, ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε, is also in the case of a contracted syllable in ov,—so that we might almost suppose that there was some provincial usage of forming the subj. of contracted verbs in ow, which our Apostle followed. At all events (especially con- sidering that we have two other cases of ἵνα with an indic., see reff.) it is better to suppose a solecism or peculiar usage, than with Meyer to give ἵνα a local sense,— ‘where, i.e. ‘in which ease ye are not (pres. for the future) puffed up,’—i.e. if you keep to the Scripture measure: the double ἵνα of the purpose being, as he himself observes, according to Paul's usage, Rom. vii. 13; Gal. iii. 14; iv. 5, al., and here being absolutely demanded by the sense. 7.| For (reason why this puffing up should be avoided) who separates thee (distinguishes thee from others ? meaning, that all such conceits of pre-eminence are unfounded. That pre-eminence, and not merely distinction (Meyer), is meant, is evident from what follows? And (δέ connects interrogative clauses, as Od. a. 225, τίς dals, τίς δὲ ὅμιλος ὅδ᾽ ἔπλετο; and Il. ε. 704, ἔνθα τίνα πρῶτον, τίνα δ᾽ ὕστατον ἐξενάριξεν ; See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 169) what hast thou which thou receivedst not (‘from God ’—not, ‘from me as thy father in the faith’)? but if (which I concede ;— στέγαι δὲ εἰ καὶ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ μὰ Δί᾽ οὐχ. trmos; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 14. Hartung, i. 140) thou receivedst it, X&c. He speaks not only to the leaders, but to the members of parties,—who imagined themselves superior to those of other par- ties,—as if all, for every good thing, were not dependent on God the Giver. 8.] The admonition becomes ironical: ‘You behave as if the trial were past, and the goal gained; as if hunger and thirst after righteousness were already filled, and the kingdom already brought in.’ κωμῳδῶν αὐτοὺς ἔλεγεν Οὕτω ταχέως πρὸς τὸ TEAUS ἐφθάσατε, ὕπερ ἀδύνατον ἦν γενέσθαι διὰ τὸν καιρόν. Chrys. Hom. xii. p. 158. The emphases are on ἤδη in the two first clauses, and χωρὶς ἡμῶν in the third. The three verbs form a climax. Any interpretation which stops short of the full meaning οὗ the words as applied to the triumphant final state (so Grot., Est., Calvin., Wetst., al., interpreting them of knowledge, of security, of the lordship of one sect over another), misses the force of the irony, and the meaning of the latter part of the verse. χωρὶς ἡμῶν | ‘because we, as your fathers in Christ,- have ever looked forward to present you, as our glory and joy, in that day.’ There is an exquisite delicacy of irony, which Chrys, has well. caught: πολλὴ ἔμφασις ἐνταῦθα καὶ πρὸς \ τοὺς διδασκάλους Kk. πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς. καὶ τὸ ἀσυνείδητον δὲ αὐτῶν δείκνυται κ. τὸ ARCDP LPxNab cderg hkimn 017. 47 7---Ἰ1. Ρ ἐβασιλεύσατε. ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν "συμβασιλεύσωμεν. ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOTS A. καὶ 1 ὄφελον ye Ῥ ἐβασιλεύσατε, 50] ” 4 tva Kat p = Rom.v. 17. ch. xv. 2d. Rev. v. 10. xx. 4, 6. xzii. 5. 9 δοκῶ yap, ὁ θεὸς ΄ lal % » ΄ » Ἄ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ᾿ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἃ ἐπιθανα- « 3 ὁον. αι. ". τίους, ὅτι " θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἀγγέλοις 10 ἡμεῖς ᾿'᾿ μωροὶ διὰ χριστόν, ὑμεῖς δὲ \ ΕῚ , Kat ἀνθρώποις. Gal. v. 12. Rey. iil. 15 only. 4 Kings v.3. Job xiv. 13.) .Ps: exviii. 5 only. r Ρ] Lal e A 5] a “Ἵ . ° ce . * φρόνιμοι ἐν χριστῷ" ἡμεῖς “ ἀσθενεῖς, ὑμεῖς δὲ ¥ ἐσσχυροί: τ Tim. ii. 2 ὑμεῖς " ἔνδοξοι, ἡμεῖς δὲ Ξἄτιμοι. 11 a ἄχρι ὃ τῆς ὃ ἄρτι ὥρας only +. s ch. 111. 18 reff. t Acts ii. 22 \ c an Χ ὃ a \ d , Ν e Kal ° πεινῶμεν καὶ δυψῶμεν καὶ 4 γυμνυτεύομεν καὶ © KO- reff. {-ξις, u here only+. see note, ch. ii. 3, 14.) x Rom. xi. 25 al. 17. Eph. v. 27 only. 1 Kings ix. 6 al. a Rom. viii. 22 reff. b here only. e Matt. xxvi. 67 ; Mk. 2 Cor. xii. 7. 8. om xwp. nu. εβασ. (hom) A [om καὶ od. ye «Bac. (hom) m nj. om γε DIF. ins συν bef vu v = here (Acts xix. 29, 31) only +. Prov. xi. 12. iron., 2 Cor. xi. 19. y Luke vil. 25. xi. Mark vi. 4. ch. xii. 23 only. Isa. lili. 3. d here only t. z Matt. xiii. 57. c Rom, xii. 20 reff. 1 Pet. ii. 20 only t. ὠφελον D3L I. 9. rec aft Soxw yap ins om, with D%,-gr] LPN? rel [vulg-clem fuld? harl syrr copt goth arm Orig, ] Chr, Thdrt Ambr, [Ambrst Pel]: om ABC D![and lat] FR! am(with demid fuld! tol) Clem, Orig[-c¢,-int, 1 Damase ΤῊ] Tert, [ Hil, ]. 11. for αχρι Ts, ews F. rec yuuryrevouer (see note), with L rel [ Euthal-ms] : txt A? B2(sic: see table) CD3FPN a gh m, γυμνειτευομεν B'[D'].—om γυμν. και A}. σφόδρα ἀνόητον. ὃ yap λέγει, τοῦτό ἐστιν. ἐν μὲν τοῖς πόνοις φησὶν εἶναι πάντα κοινὰ καὶ ἡμῖν K. ὑμῖν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐπάθ- λοις kK. τοῖς στεφάνοις ὑμεῖς πρῶτοι. p. YI. The latter part of the verse is said bond fide and with solemnity: And I would indeed (γε strengthens the wish; so 7 δ᾽ εἵλεθ᾽... ὥς γε μήποτ᾽ ὥφελεν λαβεῖν... Μενέλαον, Eur. Iph. Aul. 70. Hartung, i. 373. ὄφελον is used in LXX and N. T. asa particle, with the indic.: also with optative. See, for both, reff.) that ye did reign (that the kingdom of the Lord was actually come, and ye reigning with Him), that we also might reign together with you (that we, though deposed from our proper place, might at least be vouchsafed a humble share in your kingiy glory). 9.] For (and there is abundant reason for this wish in our present afflicted state) I think,— God set forth (before the eyes of the world,— the similitude is in θέατρον following) us the Apostles (meaning all the Apostles, principally himself and Apollos) last (the rendering of Erasm., Calv., Beza, al., ws who were last called to be Apostles, q. d. τοὺς ἀπ. τοὺς ἐσχ.; OF τοὺς ἐσχ. aTOTT.,— is ungraminatical. ἐσχάτους. last and vilest : not, ‘respectu priorum,’ last, as the prophets were before us, as Corn.- a-lap., and in part, Bengel) as persons condemned to death (as καταδίκους, Chrys. Tertullian seems to define the meaning too closely when, De Pudie. 14, vol. ii. p. 1006, he interprets it ‘ veluti bestiarios. Dion. Hal. vii. 35, says of the Tarpeian rock, ὅθεν αὐτοῖς ἔθος βάλ- λειν τοὺς ἐπιθανατίου:)---ἴοῦΥῦ we are be- come a spectacle (θέατρον = θέαμα: so “nothing but reduce us Achilles Tatius, i. p. 55 (Kypke), and θέατρα ποιητῶν, Aschines, Dial. Soer. iii. 20 :—see θεατριζόμενοι, Heb. x. 33) to the world, as well to angels (good angels: ἄγγελοι absol., never either includes, or signifies, bad angels) as to men (κόσμῳ being afterwards specialized into angels and men). 10.] Again, the bitterest irony: ‘ how different our lot from yours! How are you to be envied—we, to be pitied 1’ There is a distinction in διὰ χριστόν and ἐν χριστῷ--α. ἃ. We are foolish for Christ’s sike (on account of Christ,— our connexion with Him does to be fools), whereas you are φρόνιμοι ἐν χριστῴ, have entered into full participation of Him, and grown up to be wise, subtle Christians. ἀσθενεῖς --ἰσχυροί are both to be understood generally: the ἀσθένεια is not here that of persecution, but that of ch. ii. 3: the strength is the high bearing of the Corinthians. Ye are in honour (in glorious repute, party leaders and party men, highly honoured and looked up to), whereas we are de- spised (without honour). Then ἄτιμοι leads him to enlarge on the disgrace and con- tempt which the Apostle met with at the hands of the world. 11—13.] He enters into the particulars of this state of affliction, which was not a thing past, but enduring to the present moment. 11.] ἄχρι τ. ἄρτι ὥρας is evidently not to be taken strictly as indicative of the situa- tion of Paul at the time of writing the Epistle, but as generally describing the. kind of life to which, then ard always, he and the other Apostles were exposed: οὐ παλαιὰ dinvoduat πράγματα, ἀλλ’ ἅπερ 502 f here only ἢ. g Rom. xvi. 6, 12reff. h = Acts xvill. 3 reff. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOTS A. TV. , a ς 4 - ἡ 9 , λαφιζόμεθα καὶ ' ἀστατοῦμεν, 13 καὶ & κοπιῶμεν ™ ἐργαζό- nw ; / / > 6 μενοι ταῖς ἰδίαις iyepoivy ὃ λοιδυρούμενοι | εὐλογοῦμεν, , ’ , lal iEph. iv.28. ™ διωκόμενοι ἢ ἀνεχόμεθα, 18 ° δυςξφημούμενοι Tapakanov- 1 Thess. iv. 3 4 os , Ξ ᾿ ᾿ 11. Wisd. . q 5 11. Wisd. | μὲν" ὡς “περικαθάρματα τοῦ κόσμου ἐγενήθημεν, πάν Acts iti. 4 / ν᾿ & ” > 3 , ΄ a , ae τῶν ἴ περίψημα " ἕως " ἄρτι. |* οὐκ ‘ ἐντρέπων ὑμᾶς γράφω ] — Rom. xii. a ; a \ ref. σχαῦτα, GAN ὡς τέκνα μου ὃ ἀγαπητὰ "νουθετῶ 1 ἐὰν m - Matt. v. 10, ἄς. ch. xv. 9. 2 Kings xxi. 5. n absol., 2 Cor. xi. 4. (Acts xviii. 14 reff.) o here only+. 1 Mace. vii.4l only. (-μέα, 2 Cor. vi. 8.) p absol., Luke iii. 18. Rom. xii. 8. 2 Cor. νυ. 20. 2 Tim. iv. 2 al. q here only. only. Jer. xxii. 28 Schol. ap. Tromm.(? Symm.] 7. xv. 6. 1 John ii. 9 only. 26. (mid., Luke xviii. 2 al.) Ὁ Rom. i. 7 reff. Proy. xxi. 18 only. t act., here only. rhere only +. Tobit v. 18 (19) s Matt. xi.12. John ii. 10. v.17. xvi. 24. ch. viii. = pass., 2 Thess. iii. 14. Tit. ii.8only. Ps. xxxiv. τ Acts xx. 31 reff. P. 12. λοιδορ. και ευλ. and διωκ. kat avex. F (Syr) Orig-int,. 13. rec βλασφημουμενοι (substitution of more usual word), with BDFLN3 rel [vulg] Orig,[-int, ] Chr, Thdrt [Ambrst]: txt ACP! 17 Clem, Orig, Eus, Cyr[-p,} Damase. περικαθαρμα (for -uata) D'[-gr harl! }. 14, ταυτα bef ypapw DF k latt [lat ff]. νουθετων αλλα B(C doubtful). ACPR 17 Thi-txt: txt BDFL rel latt (Chr, Thdrt Damase Ambrst ]. καὶ ὁ παρών μοι καιρὸς μαρτυρεῖ. Chrys. See, on the subject-matter, 2 Cor. xi. 23—27. γυμνιτ.} are in want of sufficient clothing: cf. ἐν ψύχει Kk. yuu- vorntt, 2 Cor. xi. 27. Meyer (after Fritzsche) believes γυμνιτεύομεν to be a mistake in writing the word, of very ancient date: but surely we are not justi- tied, in such a conventional matter as the form of writing a word, to desert the unanimous testimony of the oldest Mss. And we have the forms γυμνίτης, and yuuvitis: why not then γυμνιτεύω ὃ κολαφ. are buffeted—see reff., there is no need to press the strict meaning. aotat.| τουτέστιν, ἐλαυνόμεθα, φεύγομεν. Theophyl. 12.) As testimonies to Paul’s working with his own hands, see ~ Acts xviii. 3; xx. 34; ch. ix. 6; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8. That the other Apostles did the same, need not necessarily be inferred from this passage, for he may be describing the state of all by himself as a sample ; but itis conceivable, and indeed probable, that they did. Aoud. ... x.7.A.] ‘So far are we from vindicating to ourselves places of earthly honour and distinction, that we tamely submit to re- proach, persecution, and evil repute;—nay, we return blessing, and patience, and soft words.’ 13.] παρακ., ἀντὶ τοῦ, mpao- τέροις λόγοις K. μαλακτικοῖς ἀμειβόμεθα. Theophyl. ὡς περικαθάρματα) A climax of disgrace and contempt, summing up the foregoing particulars. We are be- come as it were the refuse of the world. mepix. from περικαθαίρω, that which is removed by a thorough purification, the offal or refuse. So Ammonius (in Wetst.): καθάρματα, Ta μετὰ τὸ καθαρθῆναι ἀποῤ- ῥιπτόμενα :—Theophbylact, ὅταν ῥυπαρόν τι ἀποσπογγίσῃ τις, περικάθαρμα λέγεται τὸ ἀποσπόγγισμα ἐκεῖνον : and similarly (cum. Wetst. gives many examples of the metaphorical usage of the term κάθαρμα as a reproach, from Demosth., Aristoph., Lucian, al.,and of purgamentum in Latin. περικαθάρματα is found in Arrian, Epict ili. 22, Πρίαμος, 6 viv γεννήσας περι- καθάρματα. But Luther and very many Commentators suppose the word to imply piacula, as Schol., Aristoph. Plut. 454 (Wetst.), καθάρματα ἐλέγοντο of ἐπὶ καθάρσει λοιμοῦ Tivos ἤ τινος ἑτέρας νόσου θυόμενοι τοῖς θεοῖς, τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ἔθος καὶ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ἐπεκράτησε. Meyer well remarks that περικαθάρματα will hardly bear this meaning, and that περίψημα in the sing. would not suit it. Still we may remark, with Stanley, that περι- κάθαρμα is so used in ref. Prov., and περί- ψημα in ref. Tobit: and that Suidas says, περίψημα ... .. οὕτως ἐπέλεγον τῷ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν συνέχοντι τῶν κακῶν Περίψημα ἡμῶν γένου" ἤτοι, σωτηρία καὶ ἀπολύτρω- σις καὶ οὕτως ἐνέβαλον τῇ θαλάσσῃ ws- ανεὶ τῷ Ποσειδῶνι θυσίαν ἀποτίννυντες. περίψ.} much the same as περικαθάρ- fata,—but the expression is more con- temptuous :—the individual περικαθάρματα are generalized into one περίψημα, the τοῦ κόσμου is even further extended to πάντων, —see ch. iii. 22. 14—21.] Conclu- sion of this part of the Epistle :—in what spirit he has written these words of blame: viz. in a spirit of admonition, as their Suther in the faith, whom they ought to imitate. To this end he sent Timothy to remind them of his ways of teaching,-- would soon, however, come himself,—in mildness, or to punish, as the case might require. 14. οὐκ évtpérwv} not as one who shames you, see reff., and ch. vi. 5; xv. 34,—and for the force of the participle, ch. ii. 1. contrasts with ἐντρέπων γράφω, the con- struction being purposely adopted, to set in a more vivid light the paternai inten~ ABCDP LPNab edetg hkimn ο 17. 47 νουθετῶ 12—18. yao “ μυρίους * παιδαγωγοὺς ἔχητε ἐν χριστῷ, πολλοὺς πατέρας: ἐν γὰρ χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγ- γελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς 7 ἐγέννησα. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 16 « παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, / / “ “- , ὑμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε. 17 διὰ τοῦτο ἔπεμψα “ ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον, ef / >? \ \ U ἃ ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον " ἀγαπητὸν καὶ 4 πιστὸν ἐν ἃ κυρίῳ, ὃς 503 ᾽ ’ Υ ἀλλ᾽ ov w ch. xiv. 19. Matt. xviii. 24 only. Esther iii. 9. x Gal. iii. 24, xiii. 4, 1 Mace. ii. 19, 20. a 7 Ν ς 7 A DL: ὑμᾶς © ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου τὰς ἐν χριστῷ, καθὼς - = Philem. τ0. a 3 / ? / ΄ ὃ πανταχοῦ ἐν πάσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ διδάσκω. 6. ii. 14. Heb. vi. 12 only+. (-μεῖσθαι, 2 Thess. iii. 7, 9.) d see Eph.i.l. Acts xvi. 15. xiii. 10 reff. g Acts xvii. 30 reff. Cd. Tyr. 11. Winer, edn. 6, 3 65. 9. 15. om ιἡσου B Clem, Pac, : 16. for ουν, δε D'[-gr] F[-gr]. 17. aft τουτο ins αὐτο APR! 17 syr [ Euthal-ms]. e Mark xi. 21. xiv.72. 2 Cor. vii. 15. only. Gen. viii. 1 Ed-vat. compl. [Β def.] (-μνησις, ch. xi. 24.) b ch. xi. 1. Eph. v. lL. 1 Thess. i. c dat., Acts xi. 29. Phil. ii. 19. 2 Tim. 1.6. Heb. x. 32 f = ch. xii. 31. see Acts h w. gen. abs.,2 Cor. v.20. 2 Pet.i.3. Soph. 189s μὴ ἐρχο- ins ΑΟΘΕῚΓΡῚΝ rel vulg Syr Orig-int,. rec τέκνον bef μου (corrn to more usual order), with DFL rel latt Orig[-c,] Thdrt ΤῊ] Ge lat-ff: txt ΑΒΟΡΝ τὰ 17 arm [ Euthal-ms] Chr Damasc. [as Woide]. avopturynoer(sic) A al, o 17 vulg-ed [fuld harl arm] syr copt Chr, Damase [Ambrst πιστος F. A [has not] χριστω for kupiw for χριστω, xp. enoov C D?[-gr] δὲ bm 7: κυριω ino. D) {and lat] F: txt AB D3(-gr] LP rel ain(with demid [tol]) Syr Orig[-c,] Thdrt ΤῺ] Ce. tion:—I am not writing these things (vv. 8—13) as shaming you,—but I am admonishing you as my beloved children. 15.| Justification of the expression τέκνα μου. μυρίους, the greatest possible number—see reff. mavoay. | He was their spiritual father: those who followed, Apollos included, were but tutors, having the care and education of the children, but not the rights, as they could not have the peculiar affection of the father. He evidently shews by μυρίους, that these παιδαγωγοί were more in number than he could wish,—including among them doubtless the false and party teachers: but to refer the word only to them and their despotic leading (as Beza, Calvin, al., and De Wette), or to confine its meaning to the stricter sense of παιδαγωγός, the slave who led the child to school, is not here borne out by the facts. See ref. and note: and for the wider sense of παιδαγ., examples in Wetst. ἀλλ᾽ ov brings out the contrast strongly, giving almost the sense of ‘at non ideo: so Asch. in Ctes. ὃ 155, καὶ yap ἐὰν αὐτὰ διεξίῃ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ψηφίσματος mpostdyuara, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τόγ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας αἰσχρὸν σιω- πηθήσεται. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 40. ἐν yap xp.] For in Christ Jesus (as the spiritual element in which the begetting took place: so commonly év χριστῷ, applied to relations of life, see ver. 17, bis,—not to be joined as De W. with ἐγώ, ᾳ. ἃ. ἐγὼ yap ev x. Ἰησοῦ δ. τ. εὐ. bp. ἐγέννησα) by means of the gospel (the preached word being the instrument) I ᾿ (emphatic) begat you (there is also an emphasis on ὑμᾶς, as coming before the verb, α. ἃ. in your case, I it was who begat you). 16.) οὖν, because I ain your father. μιμηταί, not only, nor perhaps chiefly, in the things just men- tioned, vv. 9—18,—but as ver. 17, in ai ὁδοί μου ai ἐν χρ., my manner of life and teaching. See reff. 17.] διὰ TouTo,—in order that you may the better imitate me by being put in mind of my ways and teaching: not, as Chrys., Theo- phyl., al., ἐπειδὴ ὡς παίδων κήδομαι, καὶ ὡς γεγεννηκώς,-ττονν ὨΪΟἢ would make ver. 16 a very harsh parenthesis, and destroy the force of what follows. On the fact, see Prolegg. to 2 Cor., § ii. 4. τέκνον] see 1 Tim. i. 2,18; 2 Tim. i. ὃ: Meyer remarks, that by the strict use of the word τέκνον in this passage (vv. 14, 15) we have a certain proof that Timothy was converted by Paul: see Acts xiv. 6, 7 and note. “The phrase seems to be used here in reference to τέκνα ἀγαπητά, ver. 14: ‘I sent Timotheus, who stands to me in the same relation that you stand (in).’” Stanley. ᾿ ἐν κυρίῳ points out the spiritual nature of the relation- ship. ἀναμνήσει)] Timothy, by being himself a close imitator of the Chris- tian virtues and teaching of his and their spiritual father, would bring to their minds his well-known character, and way of teach- ing, which they seemed to have well-nigh forgotten. See 2 Tim. iii. 10. καθώς specifies what before was expressed gene- rally : so Luke xxiv. 19, 20, τὰ περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ . ὅπως τε παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν οἱ apx- wpets κιτιλ.; and Thucyd. i. 1, τὸν πό- Aeuov τῶν Πελ. κ. ᾽Αθ., ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους. πανταχοῦ ἐν 1. ἐκκλ. To shew the importance of this his manner of teaching, he reminds them of his unvarying practice of it: and as he was guided by the Spirit, by inference, of its 504 ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. ΙΝ, 19—21. ; , \ r ; ΄ ΄ % , iver.6ef μένου δέ μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἢ ἐφυσιώθησάν K τινες" 19 ἐλεύ- k=2 ο Ὃς, il. ᾿ . es 4.5.3. Gal. σομαι δὲ ταχέως πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 1 ἐὰν ὁ | κύριος | θελήσῃ, 37%" μ ν ABCDF ee τοὶ γνώσομαι οὐ τὸν '' λόγον τῶν | πεφυσιωμένων, ἀλλὰ ἔρκαν Ἰ James iv. 15. . = Ε ᾿ ᾿ 4 Υ ΕἾΝ ; pe ~ edfgh xxx δ. τὴν ™ δύναμιν" 50 ov yap ἐν ™ λόγῳ ἡ " βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἃ mn om. xv. , ? f / ͵ 3 δι Ν ἢ isnt GAN ὁ ἐν δυνάμει. 21 τί θέλετε ; PX ἐν ¥ ῥάβδῳ ἔλθω πρὸς °™ Dd = Rom. xiv. ᾿ ~ a , > , 9 , ͵ t 2 y oes tren, ὑμᾶς, ἢ Pev ἀγάπῃ, § πνεύματι τε ‘ πραὕτητος ; » = ch. τ᾿ 8. ; 2 Cor. ii. 1. Eph. i. 8. iii. 2. iv. 15, 17 al. Rev. ii.'27. Isa. x. 24. τ Matt. x.10'|. Heb. i. 8 al. s Rom. xi. 8 reff, t Paul (2 Cor. x. 1. Gal. v. 23. vi. 1 al4.) only, exc. James i. 21. iii. 13, 1 Pet, iii. 15. Ps. xhv. 4. 18. om δε F latt copt lat-ff. 19. θελησει LP [f}. om ov T)!, aft λόγον ins avtwy F. τον πεφυ- σιωμενον Lh mw 8. 401-9. 57. 109-10 lectt-7-12 Orig, (not Clem, Chr, Thdrt [Sevrn-e, ᾿ Damasc} &c). 21. [πνευμα (for -ματι) D)(and lat). } ree teaoTnTos, With DFLPR rel Euthal- | ms Clem, Orig, Chr, Thdrt]: txt ABC! or? 17 Damase. 7 universal necessity in the churches. a view to their amendment, the alterna- > 18—20.} To guard against misrepresenta- tive: ‘shall his coming be in a judicial or tion of the coming of Timothy just an- in a friendly spirit?’ as depending on ᾿ nounced, by those who had said and would — themselves. τί not for πότερον (as Meyer, 5 now the more say, ‘ Paul dare not come to Corinth,’ he announces the certainty of his coming, if the Lord will. 18.] ὡς μὴ ἐρχομένου forms one idea, and the δέ is in consequence placed after it all: so Thueyd. i. 6, ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι: Isoer. περὶ eip., p. 160, ὅτι ἂν τύχῃ δὲ γενησό- μενον. Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 190. @s expresses the assumption in their minds: the present part. ἐρχομένου refers to their saying—ovx« ἔρχεται, as Meyer. 19. | ἐλεύσομαι is prefixed, for emphasis, being the matter in doubt: as we say, ‘Come I will? ταχέως) How soon, see ch. xvi. 8. γνώσομαι) I will inform myself of—not the words of those who are puffed up (/hose I care not tor), but their power: whether they are really mighty in the Spirit, or not. This general reference of δύν. must be kept, and not narrowed, as Chrys., Theophyl., to [the] power of working miracles : or “ quantum apud vos sua scientia et doctrina quam jactant profecerint,” Est.; or virtuous lives (Theodoret, al.), or energy in the work of the gospel (Meyer): he leaves it general and indefinite. 20. | Justification of this his intention by the very nature of that kingdom of which he was the ambassador. ἡ Bao. τ. θεοῦ, the Kingdom (τ. οὐρ. Matt. ili. 2; iv. 17 and passim; 7. θ. Mark i. 15, al.) announced by the prophets, preached by the Lord and the Apostles, being now prepared on earth and received hy those who believe on Christ, and to be consummated ΜῊΝ He returns with His saints: see Phil. iii. 20, 21; Eph. v. 5. év bh ig . ἐν δυνάμει... rail not (i.e. does not consist in, has not its conditions and element of existence ) in (mere) word, but in power—is a kingdom of power. 21.) He offers them, with De W.), but general, and afterwards con- fined to the two alternatives: What will ye (respecting my coming) Ὁ ἔλθω, must I come? ἐν ῥάβδῳ, with a rod; but not only ‘with,’ as accompanied with: the prep. gives the idea of the element ia which, much as ἐν δόξῃ: not only with a rod, but in such purpose as to use it. There is no Hebraism: see Pas- sow under ἐν, No. 3 and 4. He speaks as a father: τί ἐστιν, ἐν ῥάβδῳ; ἐν κολάσει, ἐν τιμωρίᾳ, Chrys. πνεύμ.. τ. πραὔῦ- tyT0S| Generally, and by De Wette, ex- plained, a gentle spirit, meaning by πνεύμ. his own spirit: but Meyer has remarked, that in every place in the N. T. where πνεῦμα is joined with an abstract genitive, it imports the Holy Spirit, and the abstract genitive refers to the specific working of the Spirit in the case in hand. So πν. τῆς ἀληθείας (John xv. 26; xvi. 18; 1 John iv. 6), υἱοθεσίας (Rom. viii. 15), τῆς πίστεως 2 Cor. iv. 13), σοφίας (Eph. i, 17). ἁγιωσύνης (Rom. i. 4). (This does not however appear to be without exceptions: cf. πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας, Luke xiii. 11; δουλείας, Rom. viii. 15; κατα- νύξεως, Rom. xi. 8; δειλίας, 2 Tim. i. 7; τῆς πλάνης, 1 John iv. 6. We may indeed Say, that in none of these cases is the πνεῦμα subjective, or the phrase a mere periphrasis: but the πνεῦμα is objective, a possessing, indwelling spirit, whether of God er otherwise.) And so Chrys., Theophyl.,—éu γὰρ καὶ πνεῦμα αὐστηρότητος kK. τιμωρίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν x ρηστοτέρων αὐτὸ καλεῖ ὡς καὶ τὸν θεὸν οἰκτίρμονα κ. ἐλεήμονά Paper, ἀλλ᾽ ov = hae καίτοιγε καὶ τοῦτο ὄντα. ‘Theo- p v. 1—13.] ConcERNING A GROSS CASE OF INCEST WHICH HAD ARISEN, AND WAS eS ee Wiel 2 fy 9 / e A ‘ , V. τὐΐθλως Y ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη » Matt. τ. a4. ΠΡῸΣ KOPINGIOTS A. 505 ch. vi.'7. xy, , > \ > al ” ¢ a 9 ἡ πορνεία * ἥτις " οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὥςτε γυναῖκά τινα, 9 >t. a Ν Z 4 rn 9 a \ . - του πατρος EN ELV ~ “ KAL υμεὺς here only. 2 Mace. x. 13. see Acts xi. 22 reff. πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστὲ καὶ A , 4 A , ΄ A ΄ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον © ἐπενθήσατε, ἃ ἵνα ἀρθῇ tex f μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ » Matt. v. 3. ch. vi. 13, 18 al. Gen. Xxxviil. 24. x = Heb. ii. 3. y = Matt. vi. 29. ch. xiv. 21. Gal. ii. 5 al. z= Matt xiv. 4. xxii. 28. ch. vil. 2,29. Deut. xxviii. 30. a interrog., Luke x. 29. xviii. 26. John ix. 36. 2 Cor. ii. 2. b ch. iv. 6 reff. ς Matt. v. 4. ix. 15. Mark xvi. 10. Luke vi. 25. 2 Cor. xii. 21. Jamesiv. 9. Rev. xviii. 11,15,19 only. Isa. 1xi. 2. d = John xi. 15. e = Matt. xiii. 12. Luke xi. 22. John ii. 16 al. Isa. vii. 1, 2. f Acts xvii. 33 reff. Cuap. V. 1. rec aft εθνεσιν ins ονομαζεται (see note), with LPR3 rel syrr Chr, [ Bas, Cyr-p, Damasc] Thdrt Cassiod: om ABCDFR?! 17 latt copt ath arm Orig[-c,-int, Euthal-ms] Manes, Tert, Lucif, [Ambrst ]. rec εξαρθη (corrn from ver 13), with L rel Chr, [Bas, 2. for ουχι, ov F. HARBOURED, AMONG THEM (vv. 1—8): AND QUALIFICATION OF A FORMER COM- MAND WHICH HE HAD GIVEN THEM RE- SPECTING ASSOCIATION WITH GROSS SIN- NERS (9—-13). The subject of this chapter is bound on to the foregoing by the ques- tion of ch. iv. 21: and it furnishes an instance of those things which required lis apostolic discipline. 1.] ὅλως, actually, ‘omnino,’ see reff.: in negative sentences, ‘at all, ἀκούεται ἐν ty. πορνεία another way of saying ἀκούουσί τινες ev tu. mépvor,—the character of πόρνος is borne (by some) among you,— fornication is borne as a character among you. Krom missing this sense of ἀκούομαι, Commentators have gone wrong (1) as to ὅλως, rendering it ‘commonly,’ to suit ἀκούεται, ‘ts reported, —(2) as to ev duty, joining it with πορνεία, whereas it belongs to axoverat,—(3) as to ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τ. ἔθν., see below. καὶ τοιαύτ. 1. | And fornication of such a sort (the καί rises in a climax, there being an ellipsis of ov udvoy ..., GAAa.... before it; so Aristoph. Ran. 116, ὦ σχέτλιε, τολμήσεις γὰρ ἰέναι καὶ σύ ye; see Hartung, Parti- kellehre, i. 134), as (is) not (borne as a character) even among the heathen. The ὀνομάζεται of the rec. is a clumsy gloss, probably from Eph. v. 3: the meaning being, that not even among the heathen does any one ἀκούει πόρνος in this sense, that it was a crime that they would ποῦ tolerate as a matter of public notoriety. So that one among you has (as wife most probably, not merely as concubine: the word ἔχω in such cases universally in the N. T. signifying to possess in marriage: and Meyer remarks that ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο ποιήσας (ver. 2), and τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον (ver. 3) seem to point to a consummation of marriage, not to mere concubinage) his father’s wife (i. 6. his step-mother, see Lev. xviii. 8; οὐκ εἶπε μητρυιὰν ἀλλὰ γυναῖκα πατρός, ὥςτε TOAAG χαλεπώτερον πλῆξαι, Chrys. Hom. xv. p. 125). The Commentators gene- rally refer to Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 5, 6, Tov πατρος exe bef τινα DF. “Nubit genero socrus, nullis auspicibus, nullis auctoribus, funestis ominibus om- nium omnibus. O wmulieris scelus_ in- credibile, et preter hance unam, in omni vita inauditum,” ἄτα. It may seem astonishing that the authorities in the Corinthian church should have allowed such a case to escape them, or if known, should have tolerated it. Perhaps the uni- versal laxity of morals at Corinth may have weakened the severity even of the Chris- tian elders: perhaps, as has often been suggested, the offender, if a Jewish con- vert, might defend his conduct by the Rabbinical] maxim that in the case of a proselyte, the forbidden degrees were an- nulled, a new birth having been undergone by him (see Maimon. in Wetst.). This latter however is rendered improbable by the fact that thesApostle says nothing of the woman, which he would have done had she been a Christian :—and that Jewish maxim was taxed with the condition, that a proselyte might marry any of his or her former relatives, ‘modo ad Judaicam re- ligionem transierint” The father was living, and is described in 2 Cor. vii. 12, as ὁ ἀδικηθείς ;—and from the Apostle saying there that be did not write on his account, he was probably a Christian. 2.] καί often introduces a question, especially one by which something inconsistent or pre- posterous is bronght out,—see reff.: and note on 2 Cor. ii. 2. πεφυσ. ἐστέ] Not, which would be absurd,—aé the oe- currence of this crime, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ ἁμαρτή- Mate’ τοῦτο γὰρ ἀλογίας. Chrys.: neither, as he proceeds,—a@Ad’ ἐπὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ἐκείνου, imagining the offender to have been some party teacher: so also Theo- phyl.:—but as before, with a notion of their own wisdom and spiritual perfection : the being puffed up is only eum hoe, not propter hoc. ἐπενθήσατε) And did ye not rather mourn (viz. when the crime became first known to you), in order that (your mourning would be because of the existence of the evil, i.e. with @ view fo its removal) he who did this dead (the 506 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. V. = ch. xi 18 TO ἔργον τοῦτο ποιήσας ; 3 ἐγὼ & μὲν ἕ γὰρ ' ἀπὼν τῷ σώ- ABCDF xii? ματι, i παρὼν δὲ τῷ * πνεύματι. 6n|Kéxpika ὡς | παρὼν cdigh iatabove). TOV οὕτως τοῦτο ™ κατεργασάμενον, * ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι TOD 017.47 Col is κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ "συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ bare ut job vi13 πνεύματος σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ἰησοῦ c. only. ‘ j Acts xii. 20. 2Cor. xi. 8 al. xv. 19 reff. m Rom. ii. 9 reff. Damasc] Thdrt: txt ABCD[F]PX am 17 [ Euthal-ms] Epiph,. for ποιησ., mpatas ACR m 17 [Euthal-ms] Epiph Bas,: txt BDFLP rel Chr, [ Bas, Damase] Thdrt. 3. rec ins ws bef απων (to corresp with ws πσρων below, it being imagined that ἀπὼν iat & mvevu. was to be taken together: so Mey), with D*[and lat] FL rel syr Dial, Chr, [ Bas, Damasc] Thdrt Th! Gc Lucif, Aug, : om ABC D'[-gr] ΡΝ m 17 vulg [Syr zth } copt Manes{-in-]Epiph, Orig-int, [Hil, Ambrst Aug, Pel]. om τουτο F latt arm Lucif, [Ambr, ]. 4. om lst nuwy AN demid Lucif, Pac, [syr has it w-ast}. rec aft 1st ino. ins χριστου, with D3[-gr] FLPN rel [vulg] Syr syr-w-ast copt goth [eeth-pl] arm Dial, Chr Thdrt [Bas, Damasc Ambrst]: om AB D!{and lat] eth-rom Lucif. (C doubtful.) fom 2nd ἡμων P am fuld tol harl Orig,-int, Bas, Thdrt-ms, Lucif,(ins,). syr has it w-ast. | rec aft 2nd ing. ins χριστου, with D3[-gr] FL rel [Syr syr-w-ast copt goth wth-pl arm] Orig,[-int,] Chr Thdrt [Damase]} Lucif, Aug, Pac: om AB D! [and k Acts xvii. 16 reff. Col. ii. 5. n epp., here only. see ch. vii. 34. 1 = Acts = Acts xiv. 27. xx. 7,8 al. lat} PX vulg syr-txt ath-rom Orig,[-int, ] Dial, [Bas, Lucif,]. past part. ποιήσας is itself used from the past point of time indicated by ἐπενθή- care, and must therefore be expressed by the past) might (may) be removed from among you (viz. by your casting him out from your society) ? 38—5.] justifies the expression ἵνα ἀρθῇ just used, by declaring the judgment which the Apostle, although absent, had already passed on the offender. 8.1 ἐγὼ μὲν yap, I for my part ‘ego certe:’ so Aristoph. Plut. 355, μὰ Δί᾽, ἐγὼ μὲν οὔ: see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 413. ὡς παρών, a3 if really present, not, as being present in spirit. τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο Kat. | The object is put foremost for em»hasis’ sake, and after several intervening clauses, taken up again with τὸν τοιοῦτον, ver. 5. οὕτως, Meyer thinks, alludes to some pe- culiarly offensive method in which he had brought about the marriage, which was known to the Corinthians, but unknown to us. Olsh. understands it, ‘under such circumstances, ‘being such as he is, a member of Christ’s body.’ But this, being before patent, would hardly be thus em- phatically denoted. Perhaps after all, τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον refers to πορνεία generally, οὕτως to τοιαύτη πορνεία, ver. 1. 4. We may arrange this sentence in four different ways: (1) ἐν τῷ ov. may belong to συναχθέντων, and σὺν τῇ Suv. to mapadotvai,—so Beza, Calov., Billroth, Olsh., al.: (2) both ἐν τῷ ὃν. and σὺν τῇ δυν. may belong to συναχθέντων, ---80 Chrys., Theophyl. (altern.), Calvin (quoting for σὺν τῇ Suv. Matt. xviii. 20), Grot., Riickert: (3) both may belong to παρα- dovvai,—so Mosheim, Schrader, al.: or (4) ἐν τῷ ov. belongs to παραδοῦναι, and σὺν ws err « τῇ Suv. to συναχθέντων,---80 Luther, Cas- tal., Estius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, al. And this, am persuaded, is the right ar- rangement. For according to (2) and (3), the balance of the sentence would be de- stroyed, no adjunct of authority being given to one member of it, and both to the other: and (1) is hardly consistent with the arrangement of the clauses, the paren- thetical portion beginning far more natu- rally with the participle than with ἐν τῷ ov.,—not to mention that the common formula of the Apostles’ speaking authori- tatively, is ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ xp. or the like: see Acts iii. 16; xvi. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 6. The sentence then will stand :—(I have decreed),—in the name of our Lord Jesus (when ye have been assembled to- gether and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus), (i. 6. “1 myself, in spirit, endowed by our Lord Jesus with apostolic power: σὺν τῇ dur. belongs to τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύμ., and is not, as in Chrys.,—see avove —merely an element in the assembly) to deliver such an one (reff.) to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. What does this sentence import ? Not, mere excommunication, though it is doubtless included. It was a delegation to the Corinthian church of a special power, reserved to the Apostles themselves, of in- Jlicting corporeal death or disease as a punishment for sin. Of this we have no- table examples in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elymas, and another hinted at 1 Tim. i. 20. The congregation itself could αἴρειν ἐκ «éoov,—but it could not παραδοῦναι τῷ σατανᾷ eis ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, without the authorized concur- pd ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 507 - \ wn ΄“ ~ 5 P παραδοῦναι τὸν 4 τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ Peis ' ὄλεθρον » = 1 Tim. 1.20, uke xxiii. A , Ω“ Ν A a , A , A τῆς “σαρκός, ἵνα τὸ " πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν TH ἱήμερᾳ τοῦ Fyre 7 6 ᾽ \ νὰ ΄ ς a > ” o p Mark xiii. 12. κυρίου. οὐ καλὸν τὸ " καύχημα ὑμῶν. οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι Eph. iv. 19. A ’ or κ᾿ Z om sa. il. 1 Ἃ νυ μικρὰ ** Cuun ὅλον τὸ Ὗ φύραμα 52 ζυμοῖ ; 7 4 ἐκκαθά- « Acts και! 22 \ \ , “ 5 , ΄ 1 Thess. v. 3. pate τὴν ὃ παλαιὰν * ζύμην, iva ἦτε νέον Υ φύραμα, καθώς * 2 Thess. 1.9. 1 Tim. vi. 9 only. Prov. xxi. 7. 5 Matt. xxvi. 41 Mk. Rom. ii. 28, 29. viii. 4 al. t ch. i 8 reff. u Rom. iv. 2 reff. v Gal. v. 9. w = John vii. 33 al. x Matt. xiii. 33. xvi. 6. Exod. xii. 15 al. y Rom. ix. 21 reff. = Exod. viii. 3. z(in N. T. a2 Tim. ii. 21 only. Deut. b Rom. vi. 6 reff. 2 Cor. iii. alw. w. 0A.) as above (w). Matt. xiii. 33} L. only. Hoos. vii. 4. xxvi. 13. Judg. vii. 4 B al. [δυκιμ. A Ald. compl.) only. 14. 1 John il. 7. 5. for τὸν τοιουτ., avrov ΕἾ -ΟῪ Syr syr-mg eth]. rec aft κυρίου ins inoov, with LN rel am(with tol [flor) φῦ} Chr,[(and ms,) Bas,] Thl (ec Orig-int, Aug: ie. χριστου D demid [Ambrst]: mnuwy ino. xp. AFP m 17 [vulg-clem fuld harl Syr] (nuwy and xp. syr-w-ast) [copt arm] Orig,{-int, Chr, Thdor-mops-c,] Thdrt [Lucif, Ambr, Pel}: om B Orig,-int,[-c, Eus,] Tert, Hil, Aug, Pac,. (16 seems evident that κυριον alone was the origl, and the other varr are additions.) 6. for (vuor, δολοι D'-gr Bas-ed Hesych(appy): corrumpit vulg D-lat Iren, Orig- int, Lucif; [Ambrst Aug,]: txt ABC D?-gr FLPN rel ([Orig,-c, Chrsepe Bas, Cyr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc ]. 7. rec aft exxa@apare ins ovy, with CLPN? rel syr [eth Cyr-p, Euthal-ms Damasc] Thdrt Thi Orig-int,[-c,]: om ΑΒ ΕΝ 1 vulg Syr [copt goth spec] Clem, Bas, Chr, (Ec Tert Cypr, Lucif, Ambrst [Pel]. rence of the Apostle’s πνεύματος, σὺν τῇ Suv. τ. Kup. Nu. ᾿Ιησοῦ. What the ὄλε- θρος τ. σαρκός was to be, does not appear : certainly more than the mere destruction of his pride and lust by repentance, as some (Estius, Beza, Grot., al.) suppose: rather, as Chrys., ἵνα μαστίξῃ αὐτὸν ἕλκει πονηρῷ ἢ νόσῳ ἑτέρᾳ. Hom. xv. p. 127. Estius’s objection to this, that in 2 Cor. 11. and vii. we find no trace of such bodily chastise- ment, is not to the point,—because we have no proof that this παράδοσις was ever in- Jlicted,—nor does the Apostle command it, but only describes it as his own deter- mination, held as it were in terrorem over the offender. See note on ver. 13. Obs., σαρκός, the offending element, not σώματος. Paul could not say ὄλεθρον τοῦ σώματος, seeing that the body is to partake of the salvation of the spirit ;—but not the σάρξ, seech.xv.50. 5. ἵνα τὸ tv. σωθῇ | The aim of the ὄλεθρ. τ. cap.,—which he said ἤδη τῷ διαβόλῳ νόμους τιθείς, καὶ οὐκ ἀφιεὶς αὐτὸν περαιτέρω προβῆναι, as Chrys. p- 128. Thus the proposed punishment, severe as it might seem, would be in reality a merciful one, tending to the eternal hap- piness of the offender. A greater contrast to this can hardly be conceived, than the terrible forms of excommunication subse- quently devised, and even now in use in the Romish church, under the fiction of dele- gated apostolic power. The delivering to Satan for the destruction of the spirit, can belong only to those who do the work of Satan. Stanley remarks, “ For the popu- lar constitution of the early Corinthian church, see Clem. Rom. i. 44 (p. 297): where the rulers of that society are de- scribed as having been appointed συνευ- δοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας waons.” 6.] “Ηον inconsistent with your harbour- ing such an one, appear your high-flown conceits of yourselves !’ καύχημα, your matter οὗ glorying. Are you not aware that a little leaven imparts a character to the whole lump? That this is the meaning, and not, ‘that a little leaven will, if not purged out, leayen the whole lump,’ is manifest from the point in hand, viz. the inconsistency of their boasting : which would not appear by their danger of corruption hereafter, but by their character being actually lost. One of them was a fornicator of a fearfully de- praved kind, tolerated and harboured: by this fact, the character of the whole was tainted. 7.) The παλαιὰ ζύμη is not the man, but the crime attaching to their character as a church, which was a remnant of their unconverted state, their παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος. This they are to purge out from among them. The éxxaédp. alludes to the careful ‘ purging out’ from the houses of every thing leavened before the commence- ment of the feast of unleavened bread. Schottgen, Hor. Hebr., in loc., gives a full account of the extreme care with which this was done. See also Stanley’s note. That ye may be a new lump (opposed to the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος of old and dissolute days), a8 ye are (normally and by your Christian profession) unleavened (i.e. dead to sin and free from it). This indicating the state by profession, the normal state, as a fact, and the grounding of exhortations on it, is common enough with our Apostle, —see Rom. vi. 3, 4: ch. iii. 16, al. freq., 508 c here bls. Matt. xxv. 17. Mark Luke xxi. 1, w 7. Acts xn. 3. xx. 6 only. ? i hia Bk ᾿ Tevit.il 4, κρινείας καὶ " ἀληθείας. τ, d Matt. xxvi. 2, &c. jj. 4 Kings xxiii. 22. f of Christ here only. = Acts xiv. J3 reff. h here only. Exod. ν. 1. Deut. xvi. 15. k Rom. i. 29. 1 Acts iii. 26. n = John iii. 21. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. Υ. " c Μ Ν Ν \ de ’ ΄ ~ ef 3 ,0. ’ ἐστε “ ἄζυμοι' καὶ γὰρ τὸ ὁ πάσχα ἡμῶν “ἴ ἐτύθη χριστός. δ ε ὥςτε " ἑορτάζωμεν μὴ tev ν᾿ ζύμῃ " παλαιᾷ μηδὲ ' ἐν ζύμῃ %* κακίας καὶ * πονηρίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν © ἀζύμοις ™ εἰλι- e Mark xiv. 12. Luke xxii. 7. Exod. xii. 21. g = ch. xi. 33, xiv. 39. xv. 58. Phil. ii. 12. iv. 1. i = ch. iv. 21 reff. jch. xiv. 20 reff. m 2 Cor. i, 12. ii. 17 only τ. {(-νῆς, Phil. i. 10.) rec aft πασχ. nuwy adds ὑπερ ἡμῶν (a doctrinal gloss), with C3L P(uu.) &% rel syr> goth Hip, copt eth | ! ε Cyr, Cypr, Tert, Ambrst Jer [Augsepe Zeno}. [syr-mg-gr |. (C is here illegible.) Orig, Meth, [Cyr-p,| Thdrt Pseud-Ath, Th] Ge: om ABC!DER? 17 lats arm | Clem, Origsepe(inss vary,;) Mcion-e, [Dial, Eus,] Archel Ath, Chr, elz εθυθη: txt ABDFLPR rel ins o bet χριστος Ια, 8. εορταζομεν A D[-gr} Pd [goth Orig,]: txt BCFLN rel [latt syrr copt eth arm Origy-C)-iNtsepe Ke]. παλαιας P. movnpias, πορνειας Fi -gr]. (G-lat has both.) and involves no tautology here, any more than elsewhere. An unfortunate inter- pretation has been given to these words, —‘as ye are now celebrating the feast of unleavened bread ;’ and has met with some recent defenders, e. g. Wieseler,—and Co- nybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, edn. 2, vol. ii. p. 40, note. but first, the words will not admit it; for ἄζυμοι cannot (as joined immediately with ἐν ἀζύμοις, ver. 8) without much harshness be ap- plied in its literal sense to the celebrators of the feast, but must indicate the material which was unleavened, see reff.,—&prov Cumithy, ἄζυμον, Athenzeus iii. 109, and Gen. xix. 3; Exod. xxix. 2. Secondly, the celebration of a Jewish feast would cer- tainly not be predicated without remark of a whole mixed congregation of Gentiles and Jews, even supposing that the Gentile converts did celebrate it with the Jews. It is no answer to this, to cite passages (see Conyb. and Howson, ubi supra), where he seems to treat mixed churches, 6. g. Gal. iv. 8; Rom. vii. 1; xi. 18, as if they belonged wholly to one or other of their component elements. For this is not a parallel case. He would here, as above, be distinctly predicating, as a fact, of the whole church, a practice which he himself would have been the first to deprecate. See Gal. iv. 10. Thirdly, it is not at all probable that the Apostle would either ad- dress the Corinthians as engaged in a feast which he, at Ephesus, was then celebrat- ing, seeing that it would probably de over before his letter could be delivered,—or would anticipate their being engaged in it when they received his letter, if it were yet to come. For be it remembered, that in the sense required, they would only be ἄζυμοι during seven days. Here again, Ido not see how the example of “a birth-day letter to a friend in India,” adduced by Mr. Conybeare, as an answer to my objec- tion, will apply. It seems to me that if for unde, μη B Orig, (txt,-c;). for strictly considered, in detail, it tells my way, not his. But, fourthly,—and even could all the other objections be answered, this would remain in its full force,—the re- ference is one wholly alien from the habit and spirit of our Apostle. The ordinances of the old law are to him zot points on whose actual observance to ground spiri- tual lessons, but things passed away in their literal acceptance, and become spiri- tual verities in Christ. He thus regards the Corinthian church as (normally) the unleavened lump at the Passover ; he be- seeches them to put away the old leaven from among them, to correspond with this their normal state: for, he adds, it is high time for us to be ἄζυμοι in very deed (καὶ yap—so Xen. Anab. v. 8. 7, ἀκούσατε, ἔφη, καὶ yap ἄξιον. It introduces a power- ful reason, for (on other accounts and) also. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 137, 8), seeing that our Passover was sacri- ficed (see reff.: and cf. Heb. ix. 26, 28), even Christ (the days of unleavened bread began with the Passover-sacritice) : therefore (reff.) let us keep the feast (not the actual Passover, but the continned Passover-feast of Christians on whose be- half Christ has died. There is no change of metaphor: the Corinthians are the liv- ing ἄρτοι, as believers are the living stones of the spiritual temple) not in (as our ele- ment) the old leaven (general—our old unconverted state), nor (particular) in the leaven of vice and wickedness (the geni- tives are of apposition—‘the Jeaven which is vice and wickedness ;’ see Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 59. 8. a), but in the unleavened- ness (τὰ ἄζυμα, unleavened things, see Exod. xii. 15, 18) of sincerity and truth. The view here maintained is that of Chrys., καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιμένει TH μεταφορᾷ, ἀναμιμ- νήσκων παλαιᾶς αὐτοὺς ἱστορίας, καὶ πάσχα καὶ ἀζύμων, καὶ τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν τῶν τότε καὶ τῶν νῦν, καὶ τῶν κολάσεων καὶ τῶν τι- μωριῶν" €opTiy ἄρα ὁ παρὼν καιρός. Kat ABCDF LPN ab edtgh klmn υ 11. 47 8---11. ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 509 9" γραψα ὑμῖν ἐν ° τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ ? συναναμίγνυσθαι © (see note) compare , > ΄ a ᾿ ’ a , / 4 πόρνοις" 19 ov "πάντως τοῖς δ᾽ πόρνοις τοῦ κόσμου τού- 2 Gor. vi 8 tol. iv. 16. 3 “ / ‘ του ἢ τοῖς δ πλεονέκταις Kal " ἅρπαξιν ἢ ** εἰδωλολώάτραις, 1 Thess. v.27. oi a4 y = , <7 a ᾿ 5 μᾷ 1] oa E 2 nee iii. ἐπεὶ ¥ ὠφείλετε * apa ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν: 1! νῦν Se}. : 2 Thess. iii. 14 only. Hos. vii. 8 A Ald. compl. (συμμίγν., B) only. q as below (s,t). 1 Tim. i.10, Heb, xii. 16. xiii. 4only +. Sir. xxii. 16, 17 only. r see Rom, iii. 9 reff. s ch. vi. 9. Eph. v.5. _ tas above (s). Rev. xxi. 8. xxii. 15. u as above (s). here bis only t+. Sir. xiv. 9 only. v here bis. Matt. vii. 15. Luke xviii. 11. ch. vi. 10 only. Gen. xlix. 27 only. w as above (s, t). here bis. ch. x. 7 only +. (-τρεία, οἷν, κ.14.} χ οἷν, vii. 14 only. y Rom. xv. | reff. 10. rec ins ka bef ov παντως, with D3LPR3 rel syr Orig-ec Chr Thdrt ΤῊ] Ge: txt ABCD'FN! 17 latt copt [goth] Orig[-int,] Tert, Lucif, Aimbrst Pel. τουτου bef τ. κοσμ. 1). rec (for kas) ἢ (alteration to conform to the general context), with D?4[-gr] LX? rel [vulg E-lat syrr copt goth arm] Orig[-c,-int, Bas, Damase] Chr, Thdrt Lucif: txt ABC D!{and lat} FPR! m[y καὶ) 17 eth. rec opeiAete (corrn JSrom misunderstanding : see note), with b?P rel [ Bas, Euthal-ms} Chr, Thdrt: txt AB'CDFL® cn 17. 47 latt Damase Tert, Lucif, [Ambrst]. 11. ree vu, with CD!*N? rel Orig{-c, | Chr, ΤῊ] Gc : txt AB [D9(Tischdf)] FLPR$ dkn17 [Sevrn-c, Euthal-ms] Bas, Chr, Thdrt Damase. γὰρ εἰπὼν ἑορτάζωμεν, οὐκ ἐπειδὴ πάσχα παρῆν, οὐδὲ ἐπειδὴ ἡ πεντηκοστή, ἔλεγεν, ἀλλὰ δεικνὺς ὅτι πᾶς 6 χρόνος ἑορτῆς ἐστι καιρὸς τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν “ὧν δοθέντων ἀγαθῶν. Hom. xv. p. 128. With regard to the chronological superstructure which has been built (by Wieseler and others) on this passage, that the Epistle was written shortly before Easter, we cannot of course say that the approach of the Passover may not have suggested to the Apostle this simili- tude: and we know from ch. xvi. 8 that he was looking forward to Pentecost. But further than this it would not be safe to assume: see Prolegg. to this Epistle, ὃ vi. 3, 4. 9—13.] Correction of their mis- understanding of a former command of his respecting keeping company with forni- cutors. 9.11 wrote to you in my letter (not this present epistle, which τῇ ἐπιστολῇ might mean, see reff.,—for tliere is nothing in the preceding part of this Epis- tle which can by any possibility be so inter- preted,—certainly not either ver. 2 or ver. 6, which are commonly alleged by those who thus explain it—and ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ would be a superfluous and irrelevant addi- tion, if he meant the letter on which he was now engaged :—but, a former epistle, which has not come down to us :—ef. the similar expression, ref. 2 Cor. used with reference to this Hpistle,—and see note on 2 Cor.i. 15,16. So Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Grot., Calov., Bengel, Wetst., Mosh., De Wette, Meyer: so also Lightfoot, under- standing however an Epistle committed to Timothy, see ch. iv. 17: which could not be, as Timothy was not coming to them till after they had received this Epistle, ch. xvi. 10, and thus the words would be unintel- ligible to them :—on the other side are Chrys., Theodoret, ‘Theophyl., Krasm., Corn.-a-lapide, Wolf, al. It has been sug- gested (see Stanley, in loc.) that the whole passage, ch. v.9—vi.8, may have beena post- script or note inserted subsequently to the rest of the Epistle, and referring especially to ch. vi. 9—20) not to keew company with fornicators. 10.] οὐ πάντως limits the prohibition, which perhaps had been complained of owing to its strictness, and the impossibility of complying with it in so dissolute a place as Corinth, and ex- cepts the fornicators of this world, i.e. who are not professing Christians: not under all circumstances with the fornicators of thismworld: so Theophr. C. P. vi. 25, cited by Wetst. on Rom. 111. 9, ποιεῖ γὰρ οὐ πάντως-,-ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν OVAN τις ἢ ὑπόκαυστος. ov, not μή, because not the whole context of the prohibition is negatived, but only one portion of it, and thus οὐ πάντως τ. π. τ. κόσ. τ. Stands together as one idea. So Thucyd. i. 51, ὑποτοπήσαντες am’ ᾿Αθη- νῶν εἶναι οὐχ ὅσας ἑώρων ἀλλὰ πλείους. See more examples in Hartung, Partikel- lehre, ii. p. 125, 6. τοῦ κόσμ. τούτου, belonging to the number of unbe- lievers, — Christians who were πόρνοι be- ing expressly excluded. So Paul ever uses this expression, ch. iii. 19; ‘2 Cor. iv. 45) Eph. ii. 2. πλεονέκταις and ἅρπαξιν are joined by καί, ἃ5. belonging to the same class—that of covetous persons ;---πλεονέκ- της being an avaricious person, not a la- seivious one, as sometimes rendered (e. g. Conybeare, vol. ii. p. 41, edn. 2), nor does it seem to have any where merely this mean- ing; see Eph. iv. 19 and note. Compare on the other side Stanley’s note here, which however has not convinced me. The root of the two sins being the same, viz. lust or greed, they come often to be mentioned together and as if running into one an- other. See Trench, N. T. Syn. pp. 91, 2. On ἅρπαξιν, Stanley remarks, “It is diflicult to see why it should be expressly 510 ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOT® A. V. as: teh. vi 10 only ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ Ῥσνναναμίγνυσθαι, ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς >rov. XXv1. 2 , > a1. Cpe, ὀνομαζόμενος ἢ “ὃ πόρνος ἢ ἃ πλεονέκτης ἢ SY εἰδωλολά- τρία, 1 Tim. Tong % λοίδορος ἢ ὃ μέθυσος ἢ " ἅρπαξ, τῷ ὃ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ . vi. 1 ζ gr Prov. ς συνεσθίειν. 18 ἀτί γάρ. wo “τοὺς “ ἔξω ἴ κρίνειν ; ταν 9 οὐχὶ Ε τοὺς ξ ἔσω ὑμεῖς ' κρίνετε; 18." τοὺς δὲ “ ἔξω ὁ θεὸς Sir. xix. 1, X : ". ρ ‘¢ 5 : i. - / “ Ν 5 A . A bres. (κρίνει. ™ E€apate tov πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν ' αὐτῶν e Luke xv. 2. Acts x. 41. xi. 3. Gal. ii. 12only. Gen. xliii. 32. Ps. c. 5 only. d here only. xvi. 10. Matt. vii. 29.) see Matt. xxvii. 4. John xxi. 22, 23. e (Acts xxvi. 11. bis. Col iv. 5. 1 Thess. iv.12. Mark iv. ll only. (ef. τοῖς ἐκτός, Sir. prol.) ni. 7. g = here only. see Rom. vii. 22. . Devt. xvii. 7, 12. xxiv. 7. (Mark v.7. 2 Kings 2 Cor. iv. 16.) -- here f = John viii. 15. Rom. 2 Cor. iv. 16. Eph. iliv16. 3 Kings vi. 15. here 1 see ch. i. 24, Steph for 7, #, with (B? D-gr, perhaps) F-lat G-lat arm Aug,: txt (not defined in the other uncials) vulg [D-lat | syrr copt goth eth Iren-int, Tert, [Lucif, Ambrst] Aug). πορν. n μεθ. ἢ €1d. ἡ λοιδ. ἡ TA. ἡ apr. C. εἰδωλ. ἡ πλεον. τὴ [arm]. for unde, μη Α 119 [Orig,]: μητε F. (non aut nec G-lat.) 12. for τι, εἰ F[-gr]. rec aft μοι ins και, with D[-gr] L rel syr goth arm Chr, Thdrt Thl ec: om ABCFPN 17 latt Syr copt eth Orig{-c,] Chr, Tert, [Ambr, }. vuas ΟἹ. κρινειτε N'(txt N-corr’). 13. κρινεῖ [B? P(Tischdf)]abdfg hk lo [vulg F-lat] arm lat-ff: txt L D-lat. (κρινει B! sed antea et mox «pew. Vere.) rec (for efapare) και εξαρειτε (και insd as above more than once, for connexion: but the abruptness is characteristic: -peire from Lxx-A), with D3L rel (¢ollite autem Syr, et tollite syr &c) [Orig-c,] Chr(om και ὃ and -pare ms, in Matthai) Thdrt: καὶ εξαρατε 17: txt ABCD!FPRN ἃ m latt copt goth arm [ Bas, Euthal-ms]. introduced here, especially if πλεονέκτης has the meaning of sensuality.” Cer- tainly: but not, if 7A. retains its proper meaning, as containing the key to πορνεία on the one hand, and ἁρπαγή on the other. ἐπεὶ ὠφ. For in that case ye must go out of the world,—as Chrys. and Theophyl., ἑτέραν οἰκουμένην ζητῆσαι. The past ὠφείλ., as ἔχρην, al., because the necessity would long ago have occurred and the act have passed. 11, νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα] But my meaning was .. . ;—‘ but, the case being so, that ye must needs consort with fornicators among the heathen, I wrote to you, not to consort, &e.’ That this is the meaning and not ‘ But now I write (the epistolary aorist), &c.,’ seems plain, from the use of ἔγραψα twice so close to- gether, and therefore probably in the same reference,—from thefact noticed by Meyer, that ifa contrast had beenintended between ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ and νῦν, ἐν τῇ ἐπ. must have preceded éypava:—and from tlie usage of νῦν δέ, of which Hartung, Par- tikellehre, ii. 25, gives examples, e.g Plut. Protag. p. 347, viv δὲ σφόδρα γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων ψευδόμενος δοκεῖς ἀληθῆ λέγειν, διὰ ταῦτά σε ἐγὼ Wéeyw,—and Ly- curg. Leocr, p. 138, ἐβουλόμην δ᾽ ἂν, ὦ ἄνδρες. . -. νῦν δὲ... See also Heb. xi. 16. Thus by the right rendering, we escape the awkward inference deducible from the ordinary interpretation,—that the Apostle had previously given a com- mand, and now retracted it. ἐάν τις] If one who is called a brother be, «ec. (Ecumenius, Augustine, Ambrose, Estius, al., join ὀνομαζόμενος with πόρνος, and understand it either as = ὀνομαστός, ‘ be a notorious πόρνος, &e., or ‘be named a πόρνος Ye.’ But ὀνομαζόμ. or even dvo- μαστός, in the bad sense, is hardly ad- missible,—and in either case Paul would have written ἀδελφός tis, the stress on ἀδελφός in that case requiring it to precede Tis, as it now precedes ὀνομαζόμενος. εἰδωλολάτρης | One who from any motive makes a compromise with the habits of the heathen, and partakes in their sacrifices : Chrys. well remarks, προκαταβάλλεται τὸν περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων λόγον ὃν μετὰ ταῦτα μέλλει γυμνάζεσθαι. μέθυσος was, in pure Greek, not used of a man, but of a woman only. So Phrynichus, p. 151 (but see Lobeck’s note), μέθυσος ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἐρεῖς, ἀλλὰ μεθυστικός᾽ γυναῖκα δὲ ἐρεῖς μέθυσον kK. μεθύσην : and Pollux, vi. 25 (Wetst.), μέθυσος ἐπὶ ἀνδρῶν Μενάνδρῳ δεδόσθω. Seeing that μηδὲ συνεσθίειν must imply a more complete separation than μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι, it cannot be applied to the ἀγάπαι (as Mosheim, al.), but must keep its general meaning,—not even to sit at table with such an one. This rule, as that in 2 Thess. iii. 14, re- gards only their private intercourse with the offending person: nothing is here said of public excommunication, though for some of these crimes it would be implied. 12.] Ground of the above limita- tion. τί yap pot... .} for what concern of mine isit...% So Mlian, Var. H. vi. 11, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους ἐῶ. τί γάρ for κωφοῖς κ. ἀνοῆτοις συμβουλεύειν τὰ ABCDF LPNab edfgh kimn 017.47 ἡ ὁ δ ὁ ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 511 a ς a A ” . Ἀ εἐχὼν VI. 1 ΚΤολμᾷ τις ὑμῶν ' πρᾶγμα ' ἔχων ™ πρὸς © τὸν k= Αεἰον. 13. ABCFL ἡ α ; SNe »Ὸ ν 4.) 4 3. a oe = in Ρν δὺο ἢ €TEpov ὃ κρίνεσθαι Ρ ἐπὶ τῶν 4 ἀδίκων καὶ οὐχι Peml τῶν τον vib. defgh 1 here only.Xen. klmn Mem. ii. 9. 1. m = Acts xxiv. 19 reff. n Rom. ii. 1 reff. o = Matt. v. o 17, 47 τ δα. xxvi. 21. Job ix. 3. p = Acts xxiii. 30 reff. q = here only. see Gal. ii. red, CHap. VI. 1. ins εἰ bef vuwy ΑΓΡΊ al ἃ τὰ 17 syrr Chr, Thdrt. προς τ. ετερ. bef πραγμα εχων DF [copt goth Chr, | Thdrt Cypr [Ambrst. Aug, ].—om τὸν B. AvotteAéotata; see other examples in Wetst. τοὺς ἔξω] reff. It was among the Jews the usual term for the Gentiles. Cf. Schéttgen in loc. He means, ‘this might have been easily understood to be my meaning: for what concern have I with pronouncing sentence on the world without, or with giving rules of discipline for them? I could only have referred to persons among yourselves.’ οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω] “ Ex eo, quod in ecclesia fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum meum, ver. 9. Cives judicatis, non alienos: quanto magis ego.” Bengel. But lam not quite certain of this interpretation, which is also that of De Wette and Meyer, be- cause it would more naturally correspond to οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω καὶ ὑμεῖς κρίνετε; A prefer- able way seems to be this; ‘ My judgment was meant to lead your judgment. ‘This being the case, what concern had I with those without? Is it not on those within, that your judgments are passed?’ The arrangement mentioned by Theophylact, and adopted by Knatchbull, Hammond, Michaelis, Rosenm,, al., οὐχί: τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε, ‘ No : those within do ye (imper.) judge, —is clearly wrong, for οὐχί is no answer to τί, and would require ἀλλά after it,—even supposing wo: τοὺς ἔξω κρίνειν and τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε formed any intelligible logical contrast, which they do not. 13.] But those who are with- out Gop judgeth. The pres. κρίνει both expresses better the attribute and office of God, and answers better to the other pre- sents than the future κρινεῖ. I have there- fore retained it. The future perhaps came from Heb. xiii. 4. ‘ To judge those without, is God’s matter” These remarks about judging form a transition point to the sub- ject of the next chapter. But having now finished his explanation of the prohibition formerly given, and with it the subject of the fornicator among them, he gives, before passing on, a plain command in terms for the excommunication (but no more: not the punishment mentioned in vv. 3—5) of the offender. And this he does in the very words of Deut. xxiv. 7 (from which the reading καὶ ἐξαρεῖτε has come). ὑμῶν αὐτῶν is in Deut., but need not therefore lose its emphatic force: from among your own gelves. Cuap. V1. 1—11.] PROHIBITION 10 SETTLE THEIR DIFFER CES IN THE LE- GAL COURTS OF THE HEATHEN: RATHER SHOULD THESE BE ADJUDGED AMONG THEMSELVES (1—6): BUT FAR BETTER NOT TO QUARREL—RATHER TO SUFFER WRONG, WAITING FOR JUSTICE TO BE DONE AT THE COMING OF THE LORD, WHEN ALL WHO DO WRONG SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM HIS KINGDOM (6—11). 1.1 On τολμᾷ, Dares... , Bengel remarks, “ Grandi verbo notatur lesa ma- jestas Christianorum.” τις, no par- ticular individual, but any one: for he proceeds in the plur., vv. 4, 7. πρᾶγμα] So ref. and Demosth. κατὰ Στεφ. a. p. 1120, τῷ μὲν viet τῷ τούτου πολλῶν πραγμάτων ὄντων οὐ παρέστη πώποτε οὐδ᾽ ἐβοήθησεν ; κρίνεσθαι, reff., to go to law. So Eur. Med. 609, ὡς οὐ κρινοῦμαι τῶνδε σοὶ τὰ mAciova,—and Anthol. ii. 30, δυεκώφῳ δύςκωφος ἐκρίνετο, καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἦν ὁ κριτὴς τούτων τῶν δύο κωφό- τερος. Wetst. on Matt. v. 40. ἐπί (reff.), before, as judges. τῶν ἀδί- κων] οὐκ εἶπεν, ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπίστων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων, λέξιν θείς, Hs μάλιστα χρείαν εἶχεν εἰς τὴν προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν, ὥςτε ἀποτρέψαι κ. ἀπαγαγεῖν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ περὶ δίκης αὐτῷ 6 λόγος ἦν, οἱ δικαζόμενοι δὲ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἐπιζητοῦσιν, ὧς τὸ πολλὴν εἶναι πρόνοιαν τοῦ δικαίου παρὰ τοῖς δικά- ζουσιν, ἐντεῦθεν αὐτοὺς ἀποτρέπει, μονον- ουχὶ λέγων Ποῖ φέρῃ καὶ τί ποιεῖς, ἄνθρωπε, τοὐναντίον πάσχων ὧν ἐπιθυμεῖς, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τῶν δικαίων τυχεῖν ἀδίκοις ἐπιτρέπων ἀνθρώποις ; Chrys. Hom. xvi. p. 137. The Rabbinical prohibitions against going to law before Gentiles may be seen in Wetst.: e.g. “Statutum est, ad quod omnes Israelite obligantur, eum qui litem cum alio habet, non debere eam tractare coram gentilibus.” Tanchuma, xcii. 2. καὶ οὐχὶ ἐπὶ τ. ἁγίων] The Apostle does not mean that the Christians had their courts of law, but that they should submit their differences to courts of arbi- tration among themselves. Such courts of arbitration were common among the Jews. In Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 17, there is a decree by which the Jews of Sardis are allowed the use of 8 σύνοδος ἰδία το ἀν καὶ τόπος ἴδιος, ἐν ᾧ τά τε πράγ- ματα κ. τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι. Theodoret shews, ὡς οὐκ ἐγαντία ταῦτα τοῖς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους γραφεῖ- 519 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN r= Acts ix. 13 : ἁγίων; 9 ἢ re a \ oa 9, 15, 16, Porsaiitig και εἰ t ie iii. 17 al. fr. u = Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii, 30. see Dan. vii. 22. bis. James ii.6 only. Judg. vy. 10 B Ald. compl. 2. rec om #, with D3[-gr] L rel: ἢ "οὐκ οἴδατε OTL οἱ Vv 7 δ, αν u / e ‘ ev ὑμῖν “ κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος, Y@IOTS A. “ \ t f tu ἅγιοι τὸν ‘ κόσμον ™ κρι- Υ ἀνάξιοί Acts xvii. 31. see note. (-tws, ch. xi. 27.) w here x here ins ABC D'fand lat] FPX am 17 Syr syr-w-ast copt arm Clem, Chr, Damase (Hil, Ambr Ambrst, an nescitis vulg F-lat Cypr Aug Pel}. far ει, εαν Ε: om D!fand lat] k! Hil,. 8, 4, 5, 6. om A (homeotel, -ἰστων ending ver 2, and also ver 6). ow (Rom. xiii. 1 ff.) :— οὐ yap ἀντιτείνειν κελεύει τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἠδικη- μένοις νομοθετεῖ μὴ κεχρῆσθαι τοῖς ἄρ- χουσι. See Stanley in loc., who thinks the existence of such courts is here im- plied. But his support of his view from the Ap. Constt. and the Clementines, cir. A.D. 150, would only go to shew that the Apostie’s injunction here had been obeyed, and that those courts were the result. 2.1] οὐκ οἴδατε (161) ap- peals to an axiomatic truth. οἱ ἅγιοι τ. κ΄ κριν.} that the saints shall judge the ψου]ᾶ 1---ἰ. 6. as assessors of Christ, at His coming: so Daniel vii. 22 (Theod.), ἦλθεν ὃ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν, καὶ τὸ κρίμα ἔδωκεν ἁγίοις ὑψίστου ; see also Matt. xix. 28. So Calv., Beza, Grot., Est., Wolf, Olsh., Billroth, Rtickert, Meyer, De Wette, All attempts to elude this plain meaning of the words are fucile: whether of Chrys., Theophyl., Theodor- Mops., Theo- doret, Erasm ,---2κρινοῦσι δὲ οὐχὶ αὐτοὶ / > ~ > \ καθήμενοι Kk. λόγον ἀπαιτοῦντες, ἀλλὰ κατακρινοῦσι (Matt. xii. 41, 42), Chrys.— for this would be no parallel to the case in hand ;—or of Lightf., Vitringa, Bengel (but only as a preludium futurorum), al., —‘ quod Christiani futuri sint magistiatus et judices in mundo, —Lightf., which does not satisfy ver. 3, nor agree with the Apos- tle’s earnest Bo ge (see 2 Cor. v. al., and note on 2 Thess. ii. 2) that the coming of Christ was near at hand: or of Mosheim, Krnesti, Rosenm., ‘quod Christiani pro- faunos judicare possint,’ Rosenm., in the sense of ch. ii. 15, 16,—for no such mean- ing can be conveyed by the future, which is fixed here by the following κρινοῦμεν. καί brings out an inconsequence or a con- tradiction between the members of the sen- tence, which it is the object of the question to remove: so Xen. Cyr. s.r 2h, GAA εἴποι ἄν τις, ὅτι παῖδες ὄντες ἐμάνθανον. καὶ πότερα παῖδές εἰσι φρονιμώτεροι ὥςτε μαθεῖν τὰ φραζόμενα κ. δεικνύμενα ἢ ἄν- δρες ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 147. ἐν ὑμῖν] Chrys. attempts by this prepos. to defend his view (see above), -- οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν, ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ὑμῖν (‘ exemplo yestro’), But in vain: nor as Grot., al., is ἐν, by :—for κρίνεσθαι ἐν is the expression for to be judged before, as judges : judgment, its conditioning element, as in ref. Acts. So Aristides, Platon. ii. p. 214 (Wetst.), τινὲς ἤδη λέγονται τῶν ἡρώων ἐν θεοῖς δικασταῖς κριθῆναι, and Polyb. ν. 29. 6, Πτολεμαῖον . . .. κρίνας ἐν τοῖς Μακεδόσιν ἀπέκτεινε. See other examples in Wetst. Hence (Meyer) by this ‘coram vobis’ it appears plainly, though it might be otherwise inferred from the context, that the Saints are to be the judges, sitting in judgment. ἀνάξιοί ἐστε κριτ. ἔλαχ.] are ye unworthy of (i.e. to hold or pronounce) the smallest judgments ὃ κριτήρια cannot be, as usually rendered, ‘matters to be judged :’ it signi- fies either (1) criteria, lit. or metaphor., which sense is irrelevant here: (2) ἐγὶ- bunals, courts of justice :—so Glossar. κριτήριον, δικαστήριον, and Polyb. ix. 33. 12, κοινὸν ἐκ πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων καθίσας κριτήριον, ---οὐ (3) judgments held in such courts, judicia,—as Lucian. bis accus. (§ 25, p. 253, ed. Hagan. 1526); Hermes describes Pyrrhon as being not in court, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἡγεῖται κριτήριον ἀληθὲς εἶναι : to which Δίκη replies, τοιγαροῦν ἐρήμην αὐτοῦ καταδικάτωσαν. The last meaning suits both this place and ver. 4. So Cicero speaks of ‘in privatis minimarum rerum judiciis.” Here, they are ἐλάχιστα in comparison with the weighty judgments which shall be held hereafter ; = βιωτικά, ver. 4. 3.] The same glorious office of Christians is again referred to, and even a more striking point of contrast brought out. ἀγγέλους always, where not otherwise specified, good angels: and therefore Rae the λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα of Heb. i. 14: but exactly Aow we shall judge bier is not revealed tous. Chrys., Theodoret, (cum., Theophyl., and most Commentators interpret it of bad angels, or of bad and good together: and Chrys. as before, understands that the bad angels will be condemned by comparison with us, ὅταν γὰρ αἱ ἀσώματοι δυνάμεις αὐταὶ ἔλατ- τον ἡμῶν εὑρεθῶσιν ἔχουσαι τῶν σάρκα περι- βεβλημένων, χαλεπώτερυν δώσουσι δίκην: ὙΣ, the judges being the vehicle of ABCFL PNrabe defgh kimn ἐστε * κριτηρίων ἐλαχίστων ; ; ὃ SovK οἴδατε ὅτε ἀγγέλους ο 17. 47 v Luke xi. 15. only. Jer. xv. 19 Ed-vat. F Ald. compl.(not ABNI.) Sir. xxv. 8 (not δὲ) only. 2—5. »“ / f ‘ “ υ κρινοῦμεν, Y μήτι Yye 5 βιωτικά ; 4. βιωτικὰ * μὲν οὗν Χ ΄ BN vv \ b , Us ’ “ ᾿] / κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε, τοὺς "ἢ ἐξουθενημένους ἐν TH ἐκκλησίᾳ, τούτους “καθίζετε. b Rom. xiv. 3 reff. ἃ = ch, vil. 35 reff. ech. xv. 34 only. 18. John xviii. 22. pr 53} Gal. iii. 3. 3. for μητι ye, ποσω μαλλον F vulg eth Pel. 5. for Aeyw, λαλω 5. (C doubtful.) p. 188. Butsee above on ver. 2. μήτι γε, to say nothing of, ‘ut omittam:’ so Demosth. p. 24. 29, οὐκ ἔνι δ᾽ αὐτὸν ap- γοῦντα οὐδὲ τοῖς φίλοις ἐπιτάττειν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τι ποιεῖν, μή τί γε δὴ τοῖς θεοῖς. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 155. βιωτικά, matters relating to 6 Bios, @ man’s livelihood: see ref. and Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 12 [69], p. 873 P., θλιβόμενον ἐπικουφίζει mapauvdlais..., Tats βιωτικαῖς χρείαις ἐπικουρῶν. It is a word of later Greek usage, see Lexx. In classic Greek it would beta τοῦ Biov. The meaning here then will be civil causes, matters of meum and tuwm, as De Wette. ‘The sense is best with only a comma at κρινοῦμεν. 4. βιωτικά is emphatically repeated, as being the only sort of κριτήρια which were in question here. Meyer compares Herod. vii. 104, τὰ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ἀνώγῃ" ἀνώγει δὲ THT ἀεί, and Aristoph. Ran. 287 f. μὲν οὖν, ‘2mmo vero,’ reff. (see below). It corrects a foregoing misapprehension : so Soph. Cd. Col. 31, ““ἢ δεῦρο προ-- στείχοντα κἀξορμώμενον ;" “kal δὴ μὲν οὖν παρόντα. Hartung, Partilkell. ii. 400. See also Moulton’s Winer, p. 556, note 2. κριτήρια, again, not matters to be judged, but judgments: the matters about which, are expressed in βιωτικά. The following words may be rendered in two ways: either, (a) ‘Yea, rather (so far from remembering your high prospect, of judg- ing angels, your practice is), if ye have in hand judgments concerning civil matters, —those men who are of no account in the church (viz. the heathen), those you set up (place on the bench) as judges’ (i.e. by bringing your causes before them, you set them up as judges over you). καθίζω occurs in this sense in Plato, Legg. ix. p. 873, ἐὰν δὲ ἄψυχόν τι ψυγῆς ἄνθρωπον στερήσῃ,. .. δικαστὴν μὲν αὐτῷ καθιζέτω τῶν γειτόνων τὸν ἐγγύτατον 6 TposhKwr yéevet,—and Polyb. ix. 33. 12, cited above on κριτήριον. Thus, making καθίζ. in- dicative, Valla, Castal., Luther, Calov., Wolf, al., Schrader, Riickert, Olsh., De Wette, Meyer. But (8) Syr., Vulg., Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Beza, Calvin, Grot., Estius, Bengel, Wetst., al., take καθίζετε as imperative, and τοὺς ἐξουθεν. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. as ‘minimos de piorum plebe, So E. V.: set them to judge who are least esteemed in the ehurch. And to ΝΟ ὙΠ: ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. ο 5 d Tv ‘ ue 3 \ ς “ Xe { oe pos “ἐντροπὴν ὑμῖν λέγω. * οὕτως c trans., Acts ii. 30. Ps, xxxlv. 26. 515 y here only t+. z here bis. Luke xxi. 34 only +. a = Ver, 74 ch. ix. 25. Phil. ik. 23. 1 Kings xxx. 21. mid., Matt. xix. 28. f = Matt. xxvi. 40. Mark vii. Eph. i. 20 only. 4. for μεν ovy, your F, this last interpretation I am_ inclined to accede, both from the context and from the arrangement of the words. The context is this: ‘ Your office is to judge angels :? mere business causes of this world are almost beneath your notice. If such causes arise among you (he con- tinues in a lofty irony) set those to judge them who are of no account among you: —do not go out of your own number to others to have them judged: the meanest among you is capable of doing it. Let it be noticed that he is passing to ver. 7, where he insists on the impropriety of βιωτικὰ κριτ. between Christians aé all, and is here depreciating them ironically. But the arrangement and construction of the words are even more strongly in favour of the imperative rendering. For (i) on the other, no account is given of the emphatic position of βιωτικά. (2) the μὲν οὖν is not so naturally rendered (see above) ‘ yea rather your course is,’ as ‘ yea rather let your practice be:’ it expresses more natu- rally a subjective correction, in the mind of the speaker, than an objective one: see below, ver. 7. (8) if the sentence had re- ferred to their existing practice of going before heathen tribunals, it would have been expressed not βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτ. ἐὰν ἔχητε, but B. μ. οὖν Kp. ἔχοντες, as in ver. 1. (4) οἱ ἐξουθενημένοι ἐν τῇ ἐκκ. are much more naturally the despised in (within) the church, than those who tn (the estimation of) the church are held of no account. Meyer argues against this that it would be in this case τοὺς ἐξουθ. τοὺς ἐν τῇ éxkA., but surely he can hardly be serious, or I do not understand him rightly. (5) καθίζετε applies much better to the appointing judges over a matter among themselves, than to going before judges already appointed. (6) as to the objection that on this rendering the word ‘rather’ must be inserted, τούτους μᾶλλον καθίζετε, it has no force, for no such sup- plement is required. The command is ab- solute, but given to shew them the absur- dity of their going to law about βιωτικά at all, rather than bona fide. 5.] πρὸς évrp. tp. λέγω refers to the ironical com- mand in ver. 4—I say this to put you to shame. οὕτως} Is there so com- pletely a lack of all wise men among you.... He now suggests the more Lt 514 g Gal. iii. 28 (3ce). Col, Tere i 5 - ll. ny ava Γ ΠΥ" rly. ay. K μετὰ ἀδελφοῦ *! h = here only. Ezek. xxxiv. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. / \ - κρίνεται, ™ καὶ ™ τουτο VI. bd g » 5 © ἰνς i) \ 4 ἃ ὃ Ψ h - οὐκ ἕ ἔνι ἐν ὑμῖν οὐδεὶς σοφός, ὃς δυνήσεται ὃ" διακρῖναι τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ; 6 ἀλλὰ ἀδελφὸς | ae rs / E€7Tb ATTLO TMV. \ 5 ε a ε 7 ἤδη ° μὲν οὖν Ῥὅλως 4 ἥττημα ὑμῖν ἐστιν ὅτι ἴ κρίματα 11,20. ” } ς n \ / ME a > ων i Matt, xii. δι. ἔχετε μεθ᾽ 5 ἑαυτῶν. ‘dia τί οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἀδικεῖσθε ; Rev. vii. 17 \ ie SN cr ’ a ἄν adius a only. Exod. 'Oud τί οὐχὶ μᾶλλον "ἡ ἀποστερεῖσθε ; ὃ ἀλλὰ ὑμεῖς ἀδικεῖτε as sa, \ er ἐδ \ A > ΄ xX 2 / Wit. δ. ne Καὶ ἡ ἀποστερεῖτε, ™ Kai ™ τοῦτο ἀδελφούς. 9 ἢ * οὐκ οἴδατε ly k ee Job ix. 3 A. l ver. 1. m Rom. xiii. 11 reff. n= ch. vii. 12, ἄς. x. 27. xiv. 22, &e. 2 Cor. vi. 14,15. 1 Tim. v. 8. o ver. 4. p ch. v. 1 reff. ἢ Rom. xi. 12 only. Isa. xxxi. 8 only. r= here only. Exod. xviii. 22. s = Eph. iv. 32. Col. iii. 13 (see note there). t Matt. ix. 14. Rom. ix. 32 (reff.) al. Num. xi. 11. u = here only, mid., cf. δογματίζεσθε, Col. ii. 20. only. Mal. iii. 5. W VV. 2, 3. rec (for ev) ἐστιν, with DF m Ath,: Thi Ce. Thi Ge: D!{and lat] eth Orig[-c,] Ath, : FP am [Ambrst ] Aug). 6. [xpwate F-gr(not G).] μετα D', v Mark x. 19. ch. vii. 5. 1 Tim. vi. 5. James v. 4 txt BCLPN rel Orig{-c,] Chr, Thdrt Damase rec gopos οὐδε ets (Rom iii. 10), with D°L rel vulg syr (Chr,) Thdrt [σοφ. ovders 137 Euthal-ms, sapiens quisquam vulg Ambr, Pel :] om ovdes txt BCX 17 copt [Syr Orig- ¢,] Damasc ; ovde εἰς cop. aft os ins ov L. for τουτο, ταυτα CD? syr-mg Thdrt. at end ins καὶ ov em αγιων F. (ov sic F and ἃ.) avakpiva: X! n Orig{ -c, |. for em, 7. om ovy ΠΝ a 17 latt copt arm Orig-int, [Cypr, Ambrst Aug, ], marked with an asterisk in syr. [ Damase ] ΤῊ] Orig-int, Cypr, Chr, Thdrt Antch, Ee. αποστερεισθε L [ Antch, |}. 8. transp adic. and αποστ. D. om ὅλως A Syr Orig,{-c]. : om ABCDLPN rel syrr copt Orig,{-c Euthal-ms] Bas, κριμα τὲ [| Antch, Damasc ]. rec ins ev bef υμιν, with vulg }-lat transp αδικεισθε and rec (for tovto) tauvta (probably because two things, adix. and ἀποστ., are mentd), with L rel syr arm Chr Thdrt {Bas, Damasc] : txt ABCDPR 17 latt copt Orig,[-c Euthal-ms] Antch, Cypr,. Christian way of settling their differences, viz. by arbitration: and asks, ‘Are you come to this, that you are obliged καθίζειν any δικαστάς at all,’—have you no wise man among you (the rec., οὐδὲ εἷς, would be ‘quod est vehementius, cum sitis tam multi.’ Erasm.) who shall be able (in such event) to decide (as arbitrator) between his brother (i. e. his brethren)? This last is a harsh method of expression, and ap- parently only to be accounted for by the singular form of οὐδεὶς σοφός having attracted the other into the singular like- wise, so that instead of σοφοὶ of δυνήσον- ται διακρ. ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν, we have σοφὸς ὃς δυνήσεται διακρ. ἀνὰ pm. τοῦ ἀδ. αὐτοῦ. But it is not without use: it prevents the apparent inference, which might be made if τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ were used, that one wise man was to be appointed universal arbitrator,—and confines the ap- pointment of the arbitrator to each possi- bly arising case respectively. 6.] (lt seems not to be so): nay, &c., as implied in ver. 1. ἀλλά after a question passes rapidly on to the other alternative, the particle negativing the question being sup- pressed. So Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2, πῶς οὖν αὐτὸς ὧν τοιοῦτος ἄλλους ἂν ἀσεβεῖς... ἐποίησεν ; “AAA” ἔπαυσε μὲν τούτων πολ- λούς, ἀρετῆς ποιήσας ἐπιθυμεῖν. See Har- tung, Partikellehre, ii. 37. 7.) He gives his own censure of their going to Jaw at all. μὲν οὖν as above, ver. 4. ὅλως, altogether, without the aggrava- tion of ἐπὶ ἀπίστων. ἥττημα, 8, falling short, viz. of your inheritance of the kingdom of God—a hindrance in the way of your salvation: see ver. 9:—not as ordinarily understood (see especially Estins in loc.) a moral delinquency (cf. the usage in reff.), nor an ἡττᾶσθαι τῇ ὀργῇ, as CEcum. Kpipara, matters of dispute, lead- ing to κρίνεσθαι ; not = κρίσεις,---μεθ᾽ Eav- τῶν, with one ‘another (reff.), as being brethren in Christ. ἀδικεῖσθε and ἀποστερεῖσθε not passives, but middle (ef. Bernhardy, Syntax, chap, viii. § 4, p. 346: Menander frag.: οὗτος κράτιστός ἐστ᾽ ἀνήρ. ὦ Γοργία, ὅςτις ἀδικεῖσθαι πλεῖστ᾽ ἐπίσταται βροτῶν : Hesiod. ἔργ. 347, εὖ μὲν μετρεῖσθαι παρὰ γείτονος, εὖδ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι) —allow yourselves to be wronged and defrauded. See Matt. v. 39 ff. 8.] cannot be, as Meyer, a continuation of the question, on account of the emphatic ὑμεῖς, which would thus be without meaning. The account of this emphatic ὑμεῖς is to be found in an ellipsis after ἀποστερεῖσθε to the effect, ‘as our Lord commanded us His disciples,’ or ‘as it behoves the followers of Christ... Then ὑμεῖς comes in contrast : You on the contrary (ἀλλά, see above ver. 6) do wrong, and defraud, and that (your) brethren. 9.1 ‘Ye commit wrong τ᾿ this looks as if you had forgotten oo OTL στων, και ον ἐπι αγι- ων Ε [-gr] (and also ). ABCDL PrNrabe defen klm») 017.47 6—11. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 515 iia BA A , / ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ * βασιλείαν ov *Y κληρονομήσουσιν ; 2 M7 x — Matt. xxv. Ζ x n 6 ” a ͵ ” b "ὃ ΄ ” = 34. ch. xv. πλανᾶσθε. οὔτε * πόρνοι οὔτε ὃ εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε © μοι- δ0: Gal.¥. 21. see James \ ” \ 5 7 r , , χοὶ οὔτε ἃ μαλακοὶ οὔτε ° ἀρσενοκοῖται 1ῦ οὔτε ! KNEMTAL yl Batt v5 ΄ 5) ΄ 5 ch. xv. 33. οὔτε " πλεονέκται, ov © μέθυσοι, οὐ 8 λοίδοροι, οὐχ ὃ ἅρ- ἡ Gal-vi7. James i. 16, Isa. xli. 10. / “, mayes, * βασιλείαν θεοῦ LL καὶ , ae =! ᾿' 5 > We sis ΄ i 7 © ΄ ᾿ 11 reff. / " ταῦτά τινες ἦτε' ἀλλὰ ἱ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ * ἡγιάσθητε, chs 10,11 (reff.). / > “ ’ lal / “ aes ἀλλὰ ἵν ἐδικαιώθητε τ ἐν TH ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Τησοῦ “ ΤΈΡΕΝ ΣΝ. aA £ ἴω fal A - : καὶ ™ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. *Y κληρονομήσουσιν. 4only. Job xxiv. 15. d = here (Matt. xi.8bis. Luke vii. 25) only}. (Prov. xxv. 15. xxvi. 22 only.) e 1 Tim. i. 10 only +. see Levit. xviii. 22. Matt. vi. 19 al. Obad. 5. g ch. v. 11 (reff.). h bebe tis 17. 3John 4. i Acts xxii. 16 only. Jobix. 30 only. see Rev. i. 5. k Rom, xv, 16 reff, 1= Rom, iii. 20, 30. v. 1 8]. m Acts xiii. 39 reff. 9. There is an erasure of two letters (οι ?) bef αδικοι in A. rec βασιλειαν bef θεου (as below in ver 10), with L rel latt Polye, Clem, Chr, Thdrt [ Antch, Damasc } Iren-int,[some mss om dez] Tert, Cypr,: txt ABC D[-gr] PX m 17 [ Orig-c, Euthal- ms]. om ov B'(ins B-corr!) o}, ουδὲ (throughout vv. 9, 10) Ὁ]. 10. πλεονεκται ovre κλεπται D[-gr?] Lbcdefgh1 n047 syrr Clem, Chr, Thdrt Damase Thl: om oute πλεονεκται k 8. 35. 42. 238. rec (for Ist ov) ουτε, with BD8L rel (Clem, Ps-Ign, Meth,(in Epiph) Eutha!-ms] Ath, [Iren-int, Cypr,]: ουδὲ D}(as above): txt AC[P]€ ἃ 17 Clem, [Ps-Ath, Julian,(in [Cyr]}) Chr, Thdrt [Damasc ]. transp. μεθ. and λοι. P [ Ps-Ath, ]. θεου bef Bac. D'[-gr]. rec ins ov bef κληρονομησουσιν (prob from writing the ov of θεου twice over: the mistake being perpetuated, or even the readg occasioned, by the ov κληρ. of ver 9. This seems a more likely account than that a variation betw the two vv should have been sanctioned by perpetuating an accidental omn of the ov), with LP rei Ign(but readg varies. Coteler has κληρονομῆσαι δυνανται, omg ov) (Clem, Orig,-c,] Ath, Ps-Ath, Cyr-jer, Chr-ms, Thdrt, Thl: om ABCDX 1} 17 Polye, Orig[-c,] Meth, Ath, Chr, Thdrt, Damase,. 11, (αλλα (8ce), so AB(D)[PJ&: C has ada’ all three times; D!, the Ist time; L m, the 2nd and 3rd times.) aft κυριου ins nuwy B C(appy) P 1 m 17. 47 vulg [F-lat spec] Syr syr-w-ast copt «th arm Athb,[-int, Ps-Ath, Chr, Euthal-ms Dial, Thdrt] Did, Epiph, Iren-int, Orig-int; Cypr;: om ADLN rel [(Clem,) Did, Cyr, Damase Iren-int, Tert;, ]. aft maou ins χριστου B C(appy) D![and lat] P81 m 17 &e (as precedg) [and Cyr, Tert,]: om AD°L [Damasc] ΤῊ] (Ec. the rigid exclusion from the kingdom of God of all wrong-doers of every kind (included here under ἄδικοι) ; see Gal. v. 21. μὴ πλανᾶσθε] This caution would be most salutary and needful in a dissolute place like Corinth. It is similarly used, and with an express refer- ence to ὁμιλίαι κακαί, ch. xv. 33. πόρνοι refers back to ch. v., and is taken up again, vv. 12 ff. μαλακοί = παθικοί (sec in Wetst.). μέθυσοι. see on ch. v. 11. 11.] ‘These things were the former state of some among you: but ye are now in a far different state.’ These things (I cannot think with Meyer that ταῦτα is used with an implication of contempt, such a horde, or rabble: it is rather ‘of such a kind, see Winer, Gr. § 23.5) were some of you (τινες limits the duets which is the suppressed subject of ἦτε): but ye washed them off (viz. at your baptism. The 1 aor. mid. cannot by any possibility be passive in signification, as it is generally, for doctrinal reasons, here rendered. On the other hand the middle seuse has no doctrinal import, regarding merely the fact of their haying submitted themselves to Christian baptism. See ref, Acts), but (there is in the repetition of ἀλλά, the triumph of one who was under God the instrument of this mighty change) ye were sanctified (not in the dogmatic sense of progressive sanctification, but so that whereas before you were unholy, by the reception of the Holy Ghost you be- came dedicated to God-and holy), but ye were justified (by faith in Christ, you received the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, Rom. i. 17), in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and in the (working of the) Spirit of ourGod. These two last clauses must not be fancifully (as Meyer, al.) assigned amongst the pre- ceding. They belong to all, as De Wette rightly maintains. The spiritual washing in baptism, the sanctification of the chil- dren of God, the justification of the be- liever, are all wrought in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and are each and all the work of the Spirit of our God. By the ἡμῶν again, he binds the Corinthians and him- self together in the glorious blessings of the gospel-state, and mingles the oil of joy with the mourning which by his reproof he is reluctantly creating. Lu?2 516 n constr., Mark 11.24. ch. x. 23 bis. o Acts xxi. 37 re ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOT® .A. VE ς r ἢ , 19. 5 Ἰ]άντα μοι ὁ ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ov πάντα συμφέρει. 2 5 / , " πάντα mot ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ 1 ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό cons 13 ᾿ 5 f ee { se : % P con: str AOR, TOS: Ta βρώματα TH ᾿ κοιλίᾳ, καὶ ἢ ὑ Κοιλια τοῖς / e \ \ ΄ \ “ iio. sn ὃ βρώμασιν: ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ " ταύτην καὶ " ταῦτα " καταρ- ae 28. , \ 8 \ a > a x 7 5 ΝΟΥ \ A / poe γῆσει. τὸ ὃὲ σώμα ov TH * πορνείᾳ, ἀλλὰ TH κυρίῳ, 111. 11 al. ais ξ ΄ a ΄ wn, Bae δὲ θ \ \ \ + rLukexxii, KQL O Κύριος τῷ .OWLATL 0 ὃὲ θεὸς καὶ τὸν KUpLOY 25. ch. vil. 4 ae he es Eccl. ix. 17. s plur., Matt. xiv. 15|| LL. Mark vii.19. Lukeiii.1l. 1 Tim.iv.3. Heb. ix. 10. xiii. 9only. Job vi. 5. t = Matt. xv. 17. Rev. x.9,10. 2 Kings xx.10. 2 Chron. xxi. 15, 18, 19. u see ch. vii. 7. v Rom. iii. 3 reff. x ch. vy. 1 reff. 12. om 2nd μοι ΟἹ Orig, Terts. 12—20.] CoRRECTION OF AN ABUSE OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM WHICH SOME AMONG THEM HAD MADE, THAT, AS MEATS WERE INDIFFERENT, SO WAS FORNICATION (vv. 12—17). STRoNG PROHIBITION OF, AND DISSUASIVE FROM THIS SIN (vv. 18—20). 12.) State- ment of the true doctrine of Christian free- dom. πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν are the bona Jide words of the Apostle himself, not, as some have understood them, the saying of an opponent cited by him. For (1) the sentiment is a true Christian axiom: πάντα being of course understood, as it evidently was even by the abusers of the doctrine, of things (supposed by them) ἀδιάφορα. (2) It is not introduced by any clause indica- tive of its being the saying of another, which is Paul’s habit in such cases, see Rom. xi. 19. (8) The Apostle does not either deny or qualify the ἔξεστιν, but takes up the matter from another point of view, viz. the συμφέρει. The por is spoken in the person of Christians gene- rally. ‘Seepe Paulus prima persona sin- gulari eloquitur que vim habent gnomes: in hac presertim epistola, ver. 15, ch. vii. 7, viii. 13, x. 23, 29, 30, xiv. 11.” Bengel. συμφέρει} are advantageous—in the most general sense: distinguished from οἰκοδομεῖ, ch. x. 23, where the words again occur. Meyer cites from Theodor. Mops., -ὀπειδὴ yap ov πάντα συμφέρει, δῆλον ὡς οὐ πᾶσι χρηστέον, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὠφελοῦσι μόνοις. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξ. Meyer thinks that the ἐγώ here has an emphasis, as meaning the real J, my moral per- sonality. But this can hardly be so: the real emphasis is on οὐκ, and ἐγώ corre- sponds to μοι, expressed more to bring out the first person as the sample of Christians in general, than for any such formal dis- tinction. ἐξουσιασθήσομαι}) I will not be deprived of my freedom by any practice ;—i.e. indulge in any practice which shall mar this liberty and render it no real freedom, making me to be one under ἐξουσία, instead of one exercising it. The play on ἔξεστι and ἐξουσία cannot be given in English. 10. 124° 8 ibis ad venerem non valet consequentia.” Bengel. The argument is,—meats (of which he doubtless had often impressed on them that they were ἀδιάφορα, whence the abuse) are expressly created for the belly, and the belly for them, by its organization being fitted to assimilate them; and both these are of a transitory nature: in the change to the more perfect state, God will do away with both. Therefore meats are ἀδιάφορα. But neither is the body created for fornication, nor can this transitoriness be predicated of it: the body is for the Lord, and the Lord (in his mediatorial work) for the body: and God raised up the Lord, and will raise up us (i.e. our bodies) : so that the body is not perishable, and (resumed ver. 18) he that fornicates, sins against his own body. THEREFORE, fornication is not an ἀδιάφορον. It is very remarkable how these verses contaf the germ of three weighty sections of the Epistle about to follow, and doubtless jn the Apostle’s mind when he wrote them, (1) the relation between the sexes: (2) the question of meats offered to idols: (3) the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 401, note 21. 18.] τῇ κοιλ., scil. ἐστιν. The belly is their appointed receptacle—they, its appointed pabulum. Of course even this part of the argument must be under- stood within the limits of οὐ πάντα cup- φέρει. ὁ δὲ 6.... καταργ.] viz. at the appearing of the Lord: when, ch. xv, 51, 52, we shall be changed from a σῶμα ψυχικόν, to be a σῶμα πνευματικόν : ποῦν at death. τῇ twopv.| The body was not made for the practice of fornication. The reciprocal subserviency of the belly and meats is shewn by their coextensive- ness in duration, and perishing together : but when πορνεία (and even that lawful use which is physically the same, but which is not kere contemplated) shall have for ever passed away, the body shall be sub- serving its real use—that of being an instrument for the Lord’s work. κ. ὃ κύρ. TO σώμ. | not, only for the body: but for the body; to sanctify our bodies by His Spirit, and finally to glorify them for Himself, see Rom. viii. 11, This final Ee a ee LU [α is cited on ver 14. ] F[-gr] (and also G) [yn] OUK Ot- Sate... ABCDF, KLPRa bedef ghkl mno 17, 47 12—16. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 517 Υ ἤγειρεν, καὶ ἡμᾶς 7 ἐξεγερεῖ διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. y= Matt. x. 8 nY ρ ’ ημας 24 ρ b a nS VVALLEDS UTOU. Een Leh Weare ἮΝ “ iS Z Cs ee aD , ΩΣ 21 4]. Isa ουκ OLOATE OTL TA σώματῶ ὑμῶν MEAN χριστου ΕΟ ἾἼΕΡΟΣ τὸν cy 5 \ b t aA rn d / e ΄ z = here only. apas ουν Ta μέλη του χρίστου TTOLNOD TOPVHS ed a only. Judg. b ,ὔ Pied: ν᾿ , 63 a 2 " “ eer ΄ ΓΙ 516]: μέλη; fun γένοιτο. 16 ἢ δοὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ὁ 8 κολλώ- 53), ae ΄ A a mrs " ΄ h Theod.-B. μενος Τῇ TOPV?) εν σώμα EOTLW |; Eoovtat yap φησιν &c.(not A). . 2,3, 9. b = Rom. xii. 4, 5 (vi. 13 reff.). ς = Matt. xxi. 21. Johnii. 16. xi. 39. mE Eph. iv. 31. ἃ = Matt. iv. 19. John vi. 15 al. f Rom. iil. 4 reff. 27. (see Rom. iv. ὃ. ix. 17. Gen. χῖν. 9. e Matt. xxi. 31,32. Luke xv. 30 al. Gen. xxxiv. 31. g Acts v. 13 reff. see Matt. xix. 5. C h ellips., Heb, viii. 5. ch. xv. 1 Tim. vy. 18.) 14. elz vuas (error? Mey thinks, perhaps from Rom viii. 11), with arm: txt ABCDKLPN rel [vulg F-lat syrr copt wth] Polye, [Meth, Euthal-ms] Iren-int, [ Tert, }. εξεγειρει A D!{ (and lat) Q]: εξεγειρεῖ P m: εξηγειρεν B 672 : suscitavit am [fuld] harl(but qu, for -d2¢?): txt (see note) C D3[-gr] K(e sil) LX rel vulg-ed [F-lat arm] syrr copt eth Meth, Ath-mss, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Iven-int, Archel, Tert,, συνεξεγερει 47. 15. ins ἡ bef ove F Meth,. quwy AX! 238. apas, apa Ῥ [Ὁ] ἃ e? g k] 472, ἡ apa F Orig,[-c,] Meth Tert. om eorw F[-gr]. for μελη bef ropyns DF latt [Antch, | Iren-int, [Tert ] Cypr Lucif. 16. om 7 D{-gr] KL rel syr Mcion-e, Dial, Thdrt-ms Damasce Tert,: ins ABCFPN alh m 17 [vulg D-lat Syr copt] Clem, Meth, Chr, {Euthal-ms] (Ec Cypr, Lucif,. om φησιν A Epiph, Cypr, Ambr.xpe (Tert,): ins BCDFKL[P]® rel latt Dial, Mcion-e, [Meth, Euthai-ms] Chr Thdrt Lucif,. reference must not be excluded here, though it is not the principal thought :— rather, the redemption of the body from sin, and making it into a member of Him- self by the Spirit. 14.] So far from the case of the Lord and the body answer- ing to the other, God raised up the Lord (Rom. viii. 11, al. fr.), and will raise up us too by His power. I cannot adopt here the reading (ἐξήγειρεν), or the view, of Meyer. He holds, that all reference to the resurrection, as a thing future, is out of place: that the Apostle refers to the virtual and proleptic resurrection which has already taken place in the case of the believer, as Eph. ii. 6; Col. 11. 12,— and thinks that the reading ἐξεγερεῖ has arisen from not seeing this. But how unnatural will the construction thus be— ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ τὸν κύριον ἤγειρεν, Kal ἡμᾶς ἐξήγειρεν, διὰ τ. δυν. αὐτοῦ! I can con- ceive no account of such a sentence, except that some emphasis is meant to be laid on the distinction between ἤγειρεν and ἐξήγει- pev, which idea (maintained by Bengel, al.) Meyer himseit very properly repudiates : see below. The future corresponds to καταργήσει, and is used with 7juas,—con- trary to the usual practice of Paul, who expected to be alive at the mapovoia,— as the expression, in the first person, of the truth of the future resurrection, not destruction of the body. ἤγειρεν, viz. ἐκ νεκρῶν, Acts ili. 15; Rom. iv. 24, and passim : é&eyepet, viz. ἐκ νεκρῶν. So that there is no real difference between the two words. 15.] Resumption of τὸ σῶμα τῷ κυρίῳ kK. 6 κύριος τῷ σώματι. The two are so intimately connected, that the Lord is a mystical Body, of which our bodies, parts of ourselves in our perfect organiza- tion, are members. ‘This Christian axiom is introduced as before (reff.) by οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι. Having then (οὖν, ‘ concesso,’ that my body is a member = my members are members of Christ) alienated ((or, taken away | ἄρας is not merely pleonastic, ‘ Shall I take....and make them..... as E. V. This is shewn by its position first in the sentence) the members of Christ (i. 6. my own members) shall I make them an harlot’s members? ‘The expression πόρνης μέλη δ put as coarsely and startlingly as possible, with the emphasis on πόρνης. ποιήσω may also be the aor. subj, ‘must I, have I any right to, make them ?? But μὴ γένοιτο answers better to the future. 16.| Explanation and justifi- cation of the expression πόρνης μέλη. ἤ, as De Wette well, “Do you think the expression ποιήσω πόρν. μέλη too strong ?” κολλ, “ tibliher Ausdruct fir Gefchledhtévereinigung.” De Wette. τῇ πόρνῃ) with a harlot, generic: or which in fact amounts to the same, with ‘the harlot,’ presupposed in the hypothesis. ἐν σῶμα, viz. ‘with her” The full construction would be ὅτι 6 KoAA. TH πόρ. καὶ ἡ πόρ. ἕν σ. εἶσιν, but he is here bring- ing out the criminality of the fornicator, and leaves the other out of view. The citation is spoken of marriage ; but here as above (see on ver. 13) he is treating merely of the physical act, which is the same in both cases. φησιν, viz. Gop, Who is the speaker in the Scriptures: so in citing the same words, our Lord gives them to 6 ποιήσας (αὐτοὺς) am ἄρχῆς, Matt. xix. 5. They were spoken by the mouth of Adam, but prophetically, divino afflatu. 518 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. VI. 17—20. Gx. ἢ. 24. 6 οἱ δύο ' εἰς σάρκα μίαν' 17 ὁ δὲ 8% κολλώμενος τῷ J κυρίῳ Rom.ii28. ὃν πνεῦμά ἐστιν. 18 ἢ φεύγετε τὴν | πορνείαν. πᾶν ὁ Ὁ Deut, x. ™ ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ἃ ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος, ° ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώμα- ΣΕ TOs ἐστιν' ὁ δὲ Ρ πορνεύων “ εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα “ ἅμαρ- 11 / 19 x a > ἴὸ “ x fal e lal r Ν fal pe ee ἢ *ovK οἴδατε ὅτι TO σῶμα ὑμῶν * ναὸς τοῦ . A , ‘ a \ . ἐν ὑμῖν ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν, Sov ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ, καὶ a ς A , οὐκ ἐστὲ ‘éavTav; 29" ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ " τιμῆς. ~* δοξά- m Mark iii. 28, xX A \ A, 5 lal / ς lal 22. “Rom. it. GaTE * δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν TO σώματι ὑμῶν. Sa. o = 2 Cor. xii. 2 [3 v. r.j ft. (Acts xxvi. 22. ch. xv. 27 αἱ. 3 Kings iv. 23.) p ch. x.8 bis onlyin Epp. Rev. ii. 14, 20. xvii. 2. xviii. 3,9 only. Ps, xxii. 27. q Matt. xviii. 15. Luke xv. 18, 21. ch. vili..12. Gen. xx.6,9. Xen. Hell. i. 7. 20. r ch. iii. 16 reff. s attr., Acts i. 1 reff. t gen., ch. i. 12. iii. 23. Rom. xiv. 8. u= ch. vii. 23. 2 Pet.ii.1. Rev. v. 9. xiv. 3, 4. v Acts xix. 19 reff. w Rom. i. 21 reff. x = Lukeii. 15. Acts xiii. 2, xv. 36. Gen. xviii. 4. 18. for devy., φυγετε F. for εαν, av D! 17. 106 [ Meth, ]. 19. for To σωμα, Ta σωματα (corrn to suit υμωνὴ A-corr’ Le df g τῇ ἢ 17 syr copt arm Orig.{ -c,-int, |] Meth, Did, [Cyr, Euthal-ms Hil,] Jer Ambrst Aug Vig: membra vestra vulg [spec] Ambr Pel Fulg Bede: txt Al(appy) BCDFKPN rel Syr [basm] Chr, Orig-int, Tert,. πνευματος bef αγιου B vulg [F-lat spec Orig-int, Did-int, Ambrst ]. ins tov bef θεου PX? [ Orig-c, Did, Chr, }. for εαυτ., αυτων NR}. 20. (for δοξασατε δη, glorificate et portate vulg | F-lat | G-lat Cypr, [Lucif, Ambrst (but clarificate Cypr, Ambrst) |; g/. et tollite spec Tert, δοξασατε δὴ apa Chr-txt(Sav and Matth’s ms,), δοξασατε δη apare Chr-txt(Montf and Matth’s ms,), dog. τ. θ. τουτεστιν apate τ. 8. Chr-txt(ms,)—see Griesb, who adds “‘ Ceterum in comm istud ἄρατε non attingit, preter hom. 4. in 1 Tim. hee habet δοξάσωμεν δὴ τὸν θεὸν, ἄρωμεν τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι᾽᾽ &e.—om δὴ N'(ins N-corr!) [D-lat copt Orig-c, Did, Thdrt Iren-int, ].) rec at end adds ka: ev Tw πνευματι ὑμων aTiva εστι του θεου (insd appy with a view to make the exhortation complete. An ecclesiastical portion began at δοξασατεὶ, with Οὐ D?-3[-gr] KLP rel syrr [arm-usc(and as far as vuwy arm-zoh)] Chr, Thdrt, : om ABC!D!FX 17 latt copt [basm arm-ms] sth Orig{-c,] Meth,(in Epiph) Did, Cyr, {Euthal-ms] Max Damasce Iren.int, Tert, Cypr Lucif [Ambrst]. To render φησιν impersonal, ‘it says,’ ‘heift e6,? though justified by classical usage, see Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 58. 9, would, as Meyer remarks, be altogether without precedent in the citations of Paul. The words οἱ δύο are not in the Heb., but in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and are found in the Rabbinical citations of the passage. See note on Matt. xix, 5. 171.) Union to God, His service, and His ways, is often expressed by this word (KoAA.) in the LXX (reff.): but here that enner union with Christ in spirit is meant, which is the normal state of every believer, and of which it may be said that he ἕν mv. ἐστιν with Christ. See John xvii. 21, and the parable of John xv. 1—7. Meyer rightly remarks, that the mystical marriage between Christ and His Church must not (as Olsh. from Eph. v. 23 ff.) be pressed here, as the relations of the compared are not correspondent. Still, however, the inner verity of that mystical relation is the ground of both passages. 18—20. | Direct prohibition of fornication, and its grounds. 18.| φεύγετε might be followed by οὖν, but is more forcible in this disconnected form. πᾶν ἅἁμάρτ.] The assertion, which has surprised many of the Commentators, is nevertheless strictly true. Drunkenness and gluttony, 6, g. are sins done im and by the body, and are sins by abuse of the body,—but they are still ἐκτὸς τοῦ odématos—introduced Srom without, sinful not in their act, but in their effect, which effect it is each man’s duty to foresee and avoid. But fornication is the alienating that body which is the Lord’s, and making it a harlot’s body—it is sin against a man’s own body, in its very nature,—against the verity and nature of his body; not an effect on the body from participation of things without, but a contradiction of the truth of the body, wrought within itself. When man and wife are one in the Lord, —united by His ordinance,—no such alienation of the body takes place, and con- sequently no sin. 19.] Justification ot the εἰς τὸ ἴδ. σῶμ. ἅμαρτ. above,—and this by an amplification of the above σῶμα τῷ κυρίῳ, and ἕν πνεῦμά ἐστιν. Your body (i. 6. the body of each man among you, but put singular, to keep, as in ch. iii. 16, the unity of the idea of God’s temple, or perhaps because the body in its attri- butes is in question here) is the temple of (possessed by, as His residence: the temple, not a temple, see note on ch. iii. 16) the Holy Spirit who is in you (re- miniscence of the reality of His indwell- ing), Whom ye have from God (reminis- ABCDFP KLPNa bedef ghkl mno 17. 47 “Φ πὰ - Whee Ts ΠΡΟΣ KOPINGIOTS «A. 519 T 1 Ν \ y φι 5 ΄, Z Ἂ a) , VII. 1 Περὶ δὲ Yoav ἐγράψατε, “ καλὸν * ἀνθρώπῳ 5 attr, Rom. 2 = Rom. xiv. 21 reff. vy. 8, 26. a = Matt. xix. 5 (from Gen. ii. 24), 10. Cuap. VII. 1. rec aft εγραψατε ins μοι, with ADFKLP rel [vulg-clem] syrr copt [basm wth arm] Orig[-c,] Meth, Chr, Thdrt Jer, Ambrst,; Aug: om BCX 17am fald! | Euthal-ms] Tert,. cence, whose Spirit He is, and so prepara- tion tor the following inference), and are not your own (so that ye have no right to alienate your body, not being yours). 20.| Proof, that ye are not your own. The possession of your body as His temple, by the Holy Ghost, is a presumptive proof that ye are not; but there is also a proof in matter of fact: For ye were bought (not, as Εὖ, V. are bought, which destroys the historic reference) with a price (viz, the blood of Christ, see 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Matt. xx. 283; Gal. iii. 13,—not as Vulg. pretio magno: τιμῆς merely recalls the fact here, that a price was paid and so the purchase completed). This buying is here mentioned mainly with reference to the right of possession, which Christ has thereby acquired in us. In other places it is alleged as a freeing from other services : e,g. that of sin (Rom. vi. 17, 18), of the law and its curse (Gal. iii.), of Satan (Col. i. 13). δοξάσ. δὴ. . . .] Glorify then (57, not exactly an inference from the foregoing, but = “ eja,’ ‘agedum,’ tending to enforce and intensity the command: “as a cheering or hortatory expression,” Stan- ley. So Od. v. 17, τέτλαθι δή, κραδίη ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 284 f.) God (i.e. not praise God, but glorify Him by your acts) in your body (not, by means of your body, but im your body, as the temple of God ; see John xiii. 32). Cuap. VII. 1—40.] ΒΈΡΙΣ To THEIR ENQUIRIES RESPECTING MARRIAGE; BY WHICH OCCASION IS GIVEN FOR VARIOUS COLLATERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND COM- MANDS. In order to the right understand- ing of this chapter, it will be well to re- member, that the enquiries in the letter of the Corinthians appear to have been made in disparagement of marriage, and to have brought into doubt whether it were not better to avoid it where uneontracted, and break it off where contracted, or this last at all events where one of the parties was an unbeliever. These questions he an- swers, vv. 1—16: and puts on their true grounds, vv. 17—24. They appear also to have asked respecting virgins, what was their duty and that of their parents, as to their contracting marriage. This he dis- cusses in its various aspects of duty and Christian expediency, vv. 25—38. Then he concludes with an answer and advice, respecting the liberty of a woman to marry after the death of her husband. The whole is written under the strong impres- sion (see on this, notes, Acts ii. 20; Rom. xiii. 11, and 2 Cor. v.: and Prolegg. to Vol. III. ch. v. § iv. 5—10) of the near approach of the end of this state of things (vv. 29 -- 81), and as advising them under circumstances in which persecution, and family division for the Gospel’s sake, might at any time break up the relations of life. The precepts therefore and recommenda- tions contained in the chapter are to be weighed, as those in ch. viii. al., wath re- Jerence to change of circumstances ; and the meaning of God’s Spirit in them with respect to the subsequent ages of the Church, to be sought by careful com- parison and inference, not rashly assumed and misapplied. I may also premise, that in hardly any portion of the Epistles has the hand of correctors and interpo- lators of the text been busier, than here. The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostle’s advice, on the point where as- ceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testimony against it, to be left in its original clearness. In conse- quence, the textual critic finds himself in this chapter sometimes much perplexed be- tween different readings, and in danger of on the one hand adopting, on overwhelin- ing manuscript authority, corrections of the early ascetics,—and on the other ex- cluding, from a too cautious retention of the rec. text, the genuine but less strongly attested simplicity of the original. 1, 3.1 Concession of the expediency (where possible) of celibacy, but assertion of the practical necessity of marriage, as a re- medy against fornication. 1.] 5¢, transitional, passing on to another subject. καλὸν. . . .] not, morally good: for in ver. 28 expressly not sin, but inex- pediency, is the reason for not marrying : nor good in the sense of ὑπερέχον, as Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7, vol. 11. p. 246, ‘si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum ergo est tangere ’ but expedient, generally: ‘more for a man’s best inte- rests under present circumstances :’ Ang]. ‘it is the best way,’ in the colloquial sense: so also throughout the chapter: see the word qualified ver. 26, καλὸν. . - διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην. ᾿ἀν- θρώπῳ] though of necessity by what fol- lows, the man only is intended, yet ἀνθρώπῳ does not here or in reff. = ἀνδρί, but as Meyer remarks, regards the man not merely in his sevual but in his human capacity. Thus in its deeper reference, it 09 NPOS ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. Vir: \ A / a b—Gen.xx.6. γυναικὸς μὴ » ἅπτεσθαι: 2 διὰ δὲ Tas “ πορνείας ἕκαστος Prov. vi. 29. e ch. v. 1 reff. abstr. plur., 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gal. ν. 20. James ii. 1. Winer, edn. 6, 3 27. 3. d Matt. xviii. 32. Rom. xiii. 7 only t. (-nua, Rom. iv. 4.° 5 / EX ETO. e = Rom. xiii. ἢ (xii. 17 , \ e 7 σώματος οὐκ 8 ἐξουσιάζει, ἀλλὰ ὁ ἀνήρ' \ ς fa) a > / \ € / 4, vo ” ὃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω, καὶ EXATTH τὸν LOLOY ἄνδρα 8 “Ὁ \ «ς 3 \ \ d 2 xe e > ὃ 60 τῇ γυναικὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν “ οφειλὴν © ἀποδιδοτω, fo / f δὲ f \ ¢ \ A ᾽ ὃ / μοίως ‘Oe * Kal ἢ γυνὴ τῷ avopl. 4, ¢ Ν δ SOs ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου f ὁμοίως f δὲ ἴ καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ὅ ἐξουσιάζει, ἀλλὰ ἡ γυνή. k 5 μὴ " ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, | εἰ ! μή Te ἂν * ἐκ 'συμφώνου \ , ~ 4 A a \ ΄ fhere bis. Matt. ™ πρὸς ™ καιρόν, wa " σχολάσητε τῇ 5 προςευχῆ καὶ πάλιν xxvii. 41 (ΜΚ. ν. r.). Luke v. 10, x. 32. James ii. 25 only. see Rom. i. 27. g ch. vi. 12 reff. h = here only. (ch. vi. 7,8 reff.) Exod. xxi. 10. i Luke ix. 13. 2 Cor. xiii. 5 only. k = John iii. 34. 2 Cor. viii. 13. ix. 7. Acts νυ. 9. -νησις, 2 Cor. vi. 15.) n Matt. xii. 44 (|| L. v. r.) only. Exod. νυ. 8,17 bis. Ps. xlv. 10 only. 2. C [has not] te [for δε, as in Tischdf’s Codex Ephraemi]. vulg syrr Orig-int, Tert, Cypr, [Ambrst ]. F 48; 114-77 Tert,. 3. om 6 F(not G). lhere only. Eccl. vii. 14 AN Ald. compl.(-vws B, -νεῖν C) only. (-νεῖν, m Luke viii. 13 (1 Thess. ii. 17) only. © absol., Rom. xii. 12, Wisd. iv. 4. Τὴν πορνειαν F om καὶ ἐκαστ. τ. 1d. avd. εχ. (homeotel) rec (for οφειλην) οφειλομενὴν εὐνοιαν (see note), with KL rel syrr [Anton, Damase] Thdrt ΤῊ] (e: txt ABCDFP[Q]N! 17 latt copt [basm} eth arm Clem, Orig.[-c,] Meth, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Tert, Cypr, Ambrst. αποδιδετω Α om de A 55 Syr copt [basm ] arm Orig, Chr-mss, Cypr,. 4, (adda(twice), so ΑΒΟΝ (2nd, D! 17).) rec σχολαΐητε, with KL rel Meth, Chr, Thdrt [Damase]: txt ABCDFPR Orig,[-c, Euthal-ins Cyr, ] (Dion) Chraiiq. 5. om αν B Orig, [ Damasc, }. rec ins τῇ νηστεια και bef τη mposevxn (see note), with KLN? rel syrr goth Chr,[-txt-ed, Dion, | would embrace the other sex also. ante Gat | so in reff.; and in Latin tangere, attingere, virgo intacta. See examples in Wetst. This expression is obviously here used in the widest sense, without pre- sent regard to the difference between the lawful and unlawful use of the woman. The idea that the assertion applies to ab- stinence from intercourse in the already married (see again below), is altogether a mistake. 2.| The former course is expedient—would avoid much trouble ‘ in the flesh :’ but as a general rule ἐξ may not be, seeing that for a more weighty reason the contrary course is to be recom- mended. But on account of [the] forni- cations (the many instances of fornication current. The plur. of an abstract noun implies repetition, or varieties of the occur- rence: so Herod. vii. 158, ὑμῖν μεγάλαι ὠφελίαι τε K. ἐπαυρέσεις γεγόνασι : iii. 40, ἐμοὶ δὲ ai σαὶ μεγάλαι εὐτυχίαι οὐκ ἀρέσ- κουσι, see reff., and Kiihner, Gramm. ii. 28 (8 408, y)) let each man possess his own wife, and let each woman possess her own husband. ‘The ἐχέτω is (1) not concessive, but imperative; not ‘ habere liceat, but ‘habeto. So the other ex- pressions, γαμησάτωσαν ver, 9, μενέτω ver. 11, &c. (2) not here in the sense of ‘ utatur, eique commisceatur, as Estius, al., which does not come into considera- tion till the next verse. (3) not emphatic, let each retain, according to the mistaken idea mentioned on ver. 1, that he is speak- ing to the married, who though they are not to cohabit are yet to remain together. Had either of the two latter senses been meant, the sentence would rather have stood ἐχέτω ἕκ. τ. ἕαυτ. γυναῖκα, K. ἐχέτω ἑκάστη τ. ἴδ. ἄνδρ. With regard to the assertion of Riickert, that the Apostle here gives a very low estimate of marriage, as solely a remedy against fornication, the true answer is, that Paul does not either here, or in this chapter at all, give any estimate of marriage in the abstract. His estimate, when he does, is to be found Eph. v. 25—32. 3, 4.] The duty of cohabitation incumbent on the married. This point was in all pro- bability raised in the letter of the Corin- ' thians. The Apostle’s command is a legiti- mate following out of διὰ τὰς πορνείας above. 3. τὴν ὀφειλήν] “ debitum tori.’ The rec. was perhaps an euphemism (we have also the varieties, ὀφειλομένην τιμὴν, Chrysostom once: ὀφ. τιμὴν καὶ εὔνοιαν in the ms. 40) for the same thing. Meyer will not concede this, but thinks it arose from a mistaken interpretation of ὀφειλή as meaning merely ‘ benevolentia : thinking that not εὔνοια, but φιλότης would be the word in the other case. But some of the later examples in Wetst. seem to bear out this meaning of εὔνοια. 4.] The axiom is introduced without a γάρ, as frequently. τοῦ ἰδίου... .. οὐκ ἐξ- ουσιάζει | ‘sui,cum potestatem non habet, elegans facit paradoxon.’ Bengel. The ground of this being another’s while they remain their own, is to be found in the oneness of body, in which the marriage state places them. 5. | ἀποστερεῖτε ABCDF KLPNa bedef ghkl mno 17. 47 [6 is , cited on ver 3.] 2—7. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 521 pq ’ \ \ BION Pp 9S C/ \ r , e r e “- ς \ 23 ΕἾΤ TO AUTO * TE, LWA [LN πειράζῃ υμᾶς ὁο σατανᾶς " OL P Acts ii. 1, 44. ; q Luke xvii. ti / ς Le 6 ce δὲ λέ ΝΞ ἢ 4 3d. Acts i. την ‘axpaciav ὑμῶν. ὁ τοῦτο δὲ λέγω κατὰ ἃ συγγνώμην, 33 Δ αν, > > y2? ΄ "7 , \ ΄ > , 5 xi. 20. xiv. ov κατ᾽ " ἐπιταγήν. 1 θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ἢ ΘΠ ς \ ΕῚ Loose ΕῚ \ 7] r Ma εἰν, ore ὡς Kal ἐμαυτόν. ἀλλὰ ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει ἡ χάρισμα ἐκ FX 13, θ A e \ x ee ἰὴ ὃ \x Ψ 3 Kings x. ]. εοῦ, ὁ μὲν * οὕτως, ὁ δὲ * οὕτως. Pes 5 22 15 reff. u here t Matt. xxiii. 25 only +. Jos. Antt. viii. 7.5. Xen. Mem. iv. 5, 6. (-τής, 2 Tim. iii. 3.) : (Rom. i. 11 reff.) only. Sir. iil. 13 only. v Rom. xvi. 26 rett. w = here only. x see ch. vi. 18, Thdrt : om ABCDFPN! 17 latt copt [basm] eth arm (Clem,) Orig,[-c,-int,] Dion, Meth, [Epiph, Cyr-p, Euthal-ms Damasc Ambrst | Cypr,. [612] (for ητε) συνερχεσθε (gloss: see note), witha ὁ ἢ Meth, Chr, Thdrt, Thl: [Steph] συνερχησθεῖ, with} KLP rel [copt basm] Thdrt,: γινεσθε Tat[-in-]Clem,: revertimini vulg [syrr soth arm Cypr, |: txt ABC D[-gr] FN 17 eth Orig,[-c,-int, | Dion, Cyr, [Euthal-nis ] amase, Aug(estotesepe). [πειραζεν P(appy) 47!. | om vuwy B Tat(in Clem) Meth. 7. rec yap (gloss, substituted for δε, as more appropriate), with B 1) 5: -σὐ } KLPR3 rel [vulg-clem] syrr [eth arm] Chr, Thdrt, Th] He: txt AC D!/and lat] FR'd 17 am (with demid fuld) copt goth Orig,[-c,] Chr, Cyr, [Euthal-ms] Damase [ Cypr, Ambrst]. (adda, so BCD! 17.) rec xapioua bef exer, with KL rel { vulg-clem hart] syrr goth arm Ephr, Chr, Thdrt, [Damase Ambrst Augsepe]: txt ABDF[ PJ m17 an (with [fuld] demid tol) Clem, Orig,{-c,-int, | Cyr[-p, Euthal-ms] Cypr,, C(appy) has exec bef exaortos { Tischdf, ed 8, suspects that it reads as txt]. ins Tov bef @eov DF ὁ Thart,. rec ὅς (twice), with KLN3 [47(sic) | rel Orig,[-c,] Chr Thdrt [Damasc] : txt ABCDFPR®! 17 Clem, Cyr[-p, Orig-c, Euthal-ms }. is applied by Meyer to τῆς e&ovcias,— by Billroth, al., to τῆς ὀφειλῆς; De Wette suggests τοῦ σώματος, but prefers, and rightly, leaving its reference indefinite, to be supplied in the reader’s mind. ei μή τι, unless perchance (reff). av | “ The verb is sometimes omitted after this particle, but always so that it can be supplied from a foregoing clause. So Eur. Alcest. 181, σὲ δ᾽ ἄλλη γυνὴ κεκτήσεται, σώφρων μὲν οὐκ ἂν μᾶλλον, εὐτυχὴς δ᾽ ἴσως. Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 330. ἐκ, according to: the mutual agreement being the ground, and the measure, of the act. ἵνα σχ.] in order that ye may have undisturbed leisure for prayer. ‘lhe pres. σχολάζητε of the rec. would refer to the general habit, and would thus make τῇ mpos., ‘your ordinary prayers, —being thus inconsistent with the direction given πρὸς καιρόν : the aorist expresses this tem- porary purpose, and shews that the prayer meant is not ordinary but extraordinary, —seasons of urgent supplication. Both the alteration to the present and the addition of τῇ νηστείᾳ καί, shew how such passages as this have been tampered with by the ascetics: see also Mark ix. 29. ἦτε, ποῦ συνέρχησθε as it has been amended (nor -εσθε as it has been re- amended), because εἶναι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό in this sense is the normal state of the married. For the expression see reff. The subjune. still depends on va—the aim of the temporary separation is πού that you may keep apart, but for a certain end, and then that you may be united again. iva μὴ πειρ.1 Purpose of the re-union stated, by that which might hap- pen did it not take place. πειράζῃ now is present, not aor., rs betokening the danger of a state of abstinence if continued, ἀκρασία here, not that from ἄκρᾶτος (~"~>),—which signifies a bad mixture, as ἄκρ. aépos, ‘insalebrity of the air: but that from ἀκρατής (~ ~~~),—incontinence ; see reff. διὰ τ. ἀκρ. dp., On account of your incontiuence,—but hardly, as Meyer seems to tiink, with allusion to the proverbial fault of the Corinthians in this particular, which would be more definitely expressed, were it intended. The ὑμῶν is necessary to carry out the form of the sen- tence, corresponding to ὑμᾶς above. 6.] But this I say by way of allowance (for you), not by way of command. τοῦτο refers, not to ver. 2, as Beza, Grot., and De Wette, because the precept there given depends on a reason also given, διὰ Tas πορνείας, from the nature of which reason it must be kat’ émitayhy: nor to the whole since ver. 2, as Billroth, Rickert, al.,—because the precept in ver. 3 de- pends on the general truth in ver. 4, and is also a command: nor to πρὸς καιρόν, as Theophyl.:—unor as the ascetics, Orig., Tert., Jerome, Estius (also Calvin), to ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε, because both these are but subordinate members of the preceding sentence :—still less to what follows, as Rosenm., al. :—but, as the context (ver. 7) shews, to the whole recommendation given in ver. 5. ‘This recommendation all depended on the possibility of their being tempted by incontinence: he gives it not then as @ command in all cases, but as an allowance for those to whom he was writing, whom he kuew, and ass 522 ΤΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. VIT; x \ “ , , \ A , . ae 8 Λέγω δὲ τοῖς "ἡ ayaduots καὶ ταῖς # χήραις, ὃ καλὸν 34 only + 5 Ξ Ν ΄ e » 7 ih? ὃ A ΤΑ e2 ΄ z er iv. bg QuTOlLS €AV μεινῶσιν WS KAY@. El O€ OUK εγκρατευ- ἽΝ ἘΣ ἰῇ 7 - 7, " a ‘a a ovTal, γαμησάτωσαν" ἃ κρείσσον yap ἐστιν γαμῆσαι ἢ ΓΞ τ e a 10 A δ \ f , > b Mat ee πυροῦσθαι. τὸ TOLS Εε γεγαμήῆκοσιν παραγγεέλλω ουκ 42. > Viii. or ech. ix. 25 only. Gen. xliii. 31. 1 Kings xiii. 12 only. (-τής, Tit. i. 8. ττεια, Acts xxiv. 25.) d = Phil. i. 23. 1 Pet. iii. 17. 2 Pet. ii. 21. (ver. 38. ch. xi. 17. Heb. i.4 4112.) Prov, iii. 14. e = here (2 Cor. a Eph. vi. 16. 2 Pet. iii. 12. Rev. i. 15. iii. 18) only. (2 Mace. iv. 38. Ps. xi. 6.) f Acts xvi. 18 reff. 8. ins ort bef καλον A [syrr]. rec aft αὐτοῖς ins ἐστιν, with D?-3K(om avr.) I rel syr [basm] goth Thdrt [Damasc,] Thl @e: om ABCD!FPR 17 Syr copt [arm } Orig[-c,] B. kat eyw DF Meth,: eyo a. 9. for οὐκ εγκρ., ov κρατευονται F. κρειττον BDN a in 17. Meth,. sumes, to be thus tempted. The mean- ing ‘by permission, Εἰ. V., is ambiguous, appearing as if it meant by permission of the Lord (to say it): that given by Hammond, al., κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην, is philologically inadmissible. Pah rather (δέ) wish that all men were as I myself also am (καί comparandi, so Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 22, kal ἡμῖν ταὐτὰ δοκεῖ ἅπερ καὶ βασιλεῖ. See Hartung, Partikell. i. 126) —viz., ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ, which Chrys. seems to have read in the text; see below on ver. 8. ἀλλὰ Exactos ... said in the most general way, as a milder ex- pression of ‘all have not the gift of con- tinence.’ οὕτως .... οὕτως] both are said generally, not one in the way in which I have it (of continence), another iz the way of marrying (i.e. though he have not ¢his, and be therefore better married, yet has some other), which should be ἐκεί- vws,—but, one thus, and another thus, — i.e. ‘one in one way, another in another.’ 8, 9.] Advice to the unmarried, that it is best so to remain, but **tter to marry than be inflamed with lust. 8. λέγω δέ] taking up the former ἰέγω, ver. 6, and bringing this advice under the same category as ver. 7, viz, his own wish that all were as himself. The stress is on λέγω, not on τοῖς dy. k. ταῖς χ., which would in that case be placed first, as τοῖς γεγαμηκόσιν below. τοῖς ἀγάμοις, the unmarried, of both sexes: not as usually interpreted, widowers, α" unmar- ried males alone: this is shew. by the contrasted term γεγαμηκόσιν, which em- braces (see vv. 10, 11) both sexes. καὶ ταῖς χήραις may be added as singling out widows especially ;—or more probably, because τοῖς ἀγάμοις would naturally be taken as those who never were married, and thus widows would not be understood to be included. καλόν, see on ver. 1, it is good for them, i.e. ‘their best way, ws κἀγώ) i.e. ἄγαμος. This Meth, Epiph, Chr, Cyr[-p, Cyr-jer, Euthal-ms] Damase,. ins ovtws bef μεινωσιν Ὁ late Meth, [Ambr Ambrst] Aug; bef ws m [basm]. for εαν, av γαμειτωσαν F [ἢ Epiph-ed,] Chr-ed,. om ἐστιν D}{-gr] F{-gr] ¢ copt [basm] Orig[-c,(txt,)-int, ] yauew ΑΟἸΝῚ 17 Clem, Orig{-c, Euthal-ms] Damasc,. brings the Apostle’s own circumstances more clearly before us than ver. 7, which might be misunderstood: and there can be little doubt from this, that he never was married. Grot. says, “ex ἢ. 1. non im- probabiliter colligitur, Paulo fuisse uxorem, quod et Clemens Alex. putat, sed cum hee scriberentur, mortuam.” But this rests on the mistaken interpretation οἵ ayduos noticed above. The passage of Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. [6.] 53, p.535 P., alluded to in Kuseb. iii. 30) is grounded on Paul’s having in a certain epistle addressed τὴν αὐτοῦ σύζυγον, ἣν ov περιεκόμιζε, διὰ τὸ THs ὑπηρεσίας εὐσταλές. But the words σύν- ζυγε γνήσιε, Phil. iv. 8, certainly have no reference to a wife: see note there. 9.) but if they are incontinent .. . οὐκ must be joined not with εἰ, which would require μή, but with the verb. So reff. and Soph. Aj. 1131, εἰ τοὺς θανόντας οὐκ ἐᾷς θάπτειν παρών, ‘vetas’ See other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 122 f. ἐγκρατεύω is said by Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 44, not to be found except in the LXX and N.T. But both Phrynichus and Thom. Mag. say ἀκρατεύεσθαι μη- δαμῶς εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ οὐκ ἐγκρατεύεσθαι. See in Wetst. yapnnoar.} Lobeck, in Phrynichus, p. 742, says, “post @ynua (ut ἔγηρα) ἐγάμησα invaluit quod non solum in N. T. libris, ut quidam putaverunt, sed etiam in ipsa Grecia reperitur, auctore, ut videtur, Menandro: ἐγάμησεν ἣν ἐβου- Adunv ἐγώ, nihil impediente pedum mo- dulatione quominus usitato uteretur aoris- to.” πυροῦσθαι) “melius nuberent quam urerentur, id est, quam occulta flam- ma concupiscentiz in ipsa conscientia vas- tarentur.” Aug. de sancta Virginitate, 34, vol. vi. p. 415. 10,11.] Prohibition of separation after marriage; or in case of separation, of another marriage. These γεγαμηκότες, as the &yauo and χῆραι above, are all Christians. The case of mixed marriages he treats ver. 12 ff, ABCD KLPR: bede ghkl mno 17. 47 Ὁ is rited on rer 13. ] 8—13. ἱ καταλλωγήτω" καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ 1 ἀφιέναι. \ lal , ͵ Ν δὲ λοιποῖς λέγω ἐγώ, οὐχ ὁ κύριος, εἴ τις ἀδελφὸς γυναῖκα ἔχει * 9 int Η \ Ρ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, μὴ Ἰ᾿Ἰάἀφιέτω αὐτήν" 15 καὶ γυνὴ “1 ἥτις ἔχει ” ὃ k » avopa avr la TOV, bis (Luke xi. 48. o Rom. vii. 17 reff. p = here bis only ¥. 10. (adda, so AB C(appy) D!.) Acts viii. 1. xxii. 20. Rom. i. 32) only +. (Gen. xxvii. 44.) Soph. Cid. Tyr. 990. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS, A. 523 yy l \ m ee n Lal op , n 10. ATLOTOV, Kab αὐτῇ συνευδοκεῖ οὐκειν τ ch. vi. 6 reff. = 2 John 2. Luke xvii. 31. m Acts ix. 20 \ ἥν a m ff. lxal τὰ οὗτος " συνευδοκεῖ “Ὁ οἰκεῖν Ῥ μετ᾽ u~ ana constr., here 2 Mace. xi. 24, 35 only.) q = Acts x. 41 reff. (1 Mace. i. 57. xwpilerda ADF Orig[-c,] Epiph, Bas, Ces, : txt BCKLPX® rel Clem, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt. 11. pevew ἄγαμον, and καταλλαγηναι F latt goth lat-ff. ins 151m bef ανδρι P. 12. rec eyw bef λεγω, with DFKL rel latt syr goth Orig,[-int,] Chr, Thdrt Iren- int, : txt ΑΒΟΡΝ m 17 Syr copt eth Clem Orig,. 18. for nris, εἰ τις DIFP b' h Καὶ latt Chr,({and] ms,) Thdrt, Thi-mss, [ Damase Ambrst Aug]. They are those already married. 10. οὐκ ἐγώ, ἀλλὰ ὁ κύριος) Ordinarily, the Apostle (ἐγώ) writes, commands, gives his advice, under conscious inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. See ver. 40. He claims expressly, ch. xiv. 37, that the things & γράφω ὑμῖν should be recognized as κυρίον (ἐντολή). But here he is about to . give them a command resting, not merely on inspired apostolic authority, great and undoubted as that was, but on that of THE LorD HIMSELF. So that all supposed dis- tinction between the Apostle’s own writing of himself and of the Lord, is quite irre- levant. He never wrote of himself, being a vessel of the Holy Ghost, who ever spoke by him to the church. The distinction between that which is imperative, and that which is optional, that which is more and that which is less weighty in his writings, is to be made by the cautious and believing Christian, from a wise appreciation of the subject-matter, and of the circumstances under which it was written. ALL is the outpouring of the Spirit, but not all for all time, nor all on the primary truths of the faith. Not I, but the Lord, viz. in ref. Matt. See also Mark x. 12, where the woman's part is brought out. That τέ oc- cupies the principal place here, is perhaps because the Christian women at Corinth may have been the most ready to make the separation: or perhaps, because the woman, from her place in the matrimonial union, may be more properly said ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς χωρισθῆναι than the man ἀπὸ γυναικὸς χωρισθῆναι. χωρισθ., be separated, whether by formal divorce or otherwise ; the καταλλαγήτω below, is like this, an absolute passive ; undefined whether by her own or her husband’s doing. 11.) ἐάν to καταλλαγήτω is parenthetical. It sup- poses a case of actual separation, contrary of course to Christ’s command: if such g rec (for ovtos) avros, with D4/-gr] KL rel syrr arm Chirysepe) Thdrt : txt ABCD!FP[Q]& m latt copt goth Cyr, [lat-ff]. (17 def.) for συνευδ., ευδοκει Ὁ. have really taken place (καί, veritably : see note on 2 Cor. v. 3, and Hartung, Partikell. i. 132), the additional sin of a new marriage (Matt. v. 32) must not be committed, but the breach healed as soon as possible. καταλλ.] see above on χωρισθῇ. κ. ἄνδρ. γυν. μὴ ad.| The Apostle does not add the qualification παρ- εκτὸς λόγου πορνείας Matt. v. 32 (xix. 9), not found in Mark x. 11 or Luke xvi. 18. But we cannot hence infer that he was not aware of it. The rule, not the exception, here was in his mind: and after what had been before said on the subject of for- nication, the latter would be understood as a matter of course. 12—16. } Directions for such Christians as were already married to Heathens. Such a@ circumstance must not be a ground per se of separation,—and why: but if the unbelieving party wished to break off the union, let it be so. 12. τοῖς λοι- mots, the rest, perhaps in respect of their letter of enquiry,—the only ones not yet dealt with. At allevents, the meaning is plain, being those who are involved in mixed marriages with unbelievers. ἐγώ, οὐχ ὁ κύρ.] I, 1.6. I Paul, in my apostolic office, under the authority of the Holy Spirit (see above on ver. 10), not the Lord, i.e. not Christ by any direct command spoken by Him: it was a ques- tion with which Hx did not deal, in His recorded discourses. Inthe right arrange- ment of the words (txt) the stress is not on ἐγῴ, but on λέγω: But to the rest I say (I, not the Lord). συνευδοκεῖ presup- noses his own wish to continue united. αὕτη, not αὐτή, and οὗτος, not αὐτός, below, —see reff. 13.] The change of con- struction καὶ γυνὴ itis .. . καὶ οὗτος . .,18 found frequently with καί: so Il. a. 78, ἡ γὰρ ὀΐομαι ἄνδρα χολωσέμεν, ὃς μέγα πάν- των |’Aoyelwy κρατέει καί οἱ πείθονται. 524 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. VII. 14 Σ = Acts xx. 32. xxvi. 18. Exod. xxix. 37. , A ἈΝ j > 4 \ » ὃ Petey \ e Lares αὐτῆς, μὴ 1 ἀφιέτω Tov avopa. ἡγίασται γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ A / \ ΄ Γ ΄ ΄ ὁ "ἄπιστος ‘év τῇ γυναικί, καὶ "ἡγίασται ἡ γυνὴ ἡ . 12. 5 A ᾽ a ’ \ , \ , or ἐπὰν ἄπιστος tév τῷ ἀδελφῷ " ἐπεὶ ἃ ἄρα τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν reff. ἐν σοὶ v2 , ἌΝΕΥ “- δὲ ev Ἂ 15 > δὲ fs ¥ rag’ ἔγωγε ᾿ ἀκάθαρτά ἐστιν, νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν. 15 εἰ δὲ ὁ " ἄπιστος σώζομαι, Soph. Aj. 519. uch. y. 10 only, v = Acts x. li reff. rec (for tov ανδρα) avrov (corrn to conform to αὐτὴν above, ver 12), with KLP rel syr Chr, ‘'hdrt [Damasc] Tert, : αὐτὴν (οἱ ?) 106: txt ABCDF[Q] m 17 vulg Syr copt goth eth arm Cyr, [Euthal-ms] Jer Ambrst Aug Pel Bede: αὐτὸν avipa &, but av erased by δὲ] οἵ 3, 14. om yap P. aft γυναικὶ ins τὴ πιστὴ DF latt Syr Mart-Clem Tert,. (om Aug- mss and expr.) (στος of 2nd amoros is supplied in smaller letters by N-corr!.) rec (for αδελφω) ανδρι (explanatory gloss, substituted as more appropriate : but αδελφω has peculiar force here), with D3[-gr}] KLN3 rel vulg syrr goth eth arm Chr, Thdrt fEuthal-ms Damasc} ΤῊ] (ἔς Iren{-int, Tert, ] (but add tw πίστω vulg Syr Iren-int Tert {Ambrst]): txt ABC D?(and lat] FPN! 17 copt [Cyr-p,} Augespr. [om ἐστιν A(appy). It reads νυν de ay... the end of the line being def). | [and ms]. ᾿Αχαιοί. See τοῦ, and Kihner, ii. 526 (§ 799). Meyer remarks, that the Apostle uses the vox media ἀφιέναι here, of both parties, the husband and wife, not ἀπολύειν (as Matt. v. 31, &.), which would apply only to the husband. In the E. V. this identity of terms is unfortunately neg- lected. The same word, part from, would well have expressed ἀφιέτω in both cases. By the Greek as well as Roman cus- toms the wife had the power of effecting a divorce. At Athens,—when the divorce originated with the wife, she was said ἀπο- λείπειν the house of her husband: when with the husband, ἀποπεμπέσθαι. At Rome, the only exception to the wife’s liberty of effecting a divorce appears to have been in the case of a freedwoman who had married her patronus. See Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antt. artt. Divortium, and ἀπολείψεως δίκη. Olsh. thinks that Paul puts both alternatives, because he regards the Christian party as the superior one in the marriage. But, as Meyer remarks, this would be incon- sistent with the fundamental law of mar- riage, Gen. iii. 16, and with the Apostle’s own view of it, ch. xi. 3, xiv. 34; Eph. v. 22, 23; 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12. 14.] Ground of the above precept. ἡγίασται] ‘The meaning will best be apprehended by re- membering (1) that oliness, under the Gospel, answers to dedication to God under the law; (2) that the ἡγιασμένοι under the Gospel are the body of Chris- tian men, dedicated to God, and thus become His in a peculiar manner: (3) that this being so, things belonging to, relatives inseparably connected with, the people of God are said to be hallowed by their ἁγιότης : so Theophylact, οὐχ ὅτι ἅγιος γίνεται ὁ Ἕλλην. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι ἅγιός ἐστιν ἀλλ᾽, ἡγίασται" τουτέστι, τῇ ἁγιότητι τοῦ πιστοῦ νἐνίκηται. Chrysos- tom well shews the distinction between vuve D1 F Chr, this case and that in ch. vi. 15, that being a connexion κατὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν,---ἰπ and under the condition of the very state, in which the other party is tmpure: whereas this is a connexion according to a pure and holy ordinance, by virtue of which, although the physical unity in both cases is the same, the purity over- bears the impurity. ἐν TH γ.. ἐν τῷ ἀδελ.] in, i.e. his or her ἁγιότης is situated in, rests in, the other (see reff.: and note, ch. vi. 2). ἐπεὶ ἄρα] as ref., but here ellipticaliy : since in that case (i.e. as understood, the other alternative, —the non-hallowing). ἐστιν, not ἂν εἴη, nor ἦν [E. V.], but pres.: because the supposed case is assumed, and the ind. pres. used of what has place on its as- sumption. ἅγια] as ἡγίασται above: holy to the Lord. On this fact, Chris- tian children being holy, the argument is built. This being so,—they being hal- lowed, because the children of Christians, — it follows that that union out of which they sprung, must as such have the same hal- lowed character ; i. e. that the insanctity of the one parent is in it overborne by the sanctity of the other. The fact of the children of Christians, God’s spiritual people, being holy, is tacitly assumed as a matter of course, from the precedent of God’s ancient covenant people. With regard to the bearing of this verse on the subject of Infant Baptism,—it seems to me to have none, further than this: that it establishes the analogy, so far, between Christian and Jewish children, as to shew, that if the initiatory rite of the old cove- nant was administered to the one,—that of the new covenant, in so far as it was regarded as corresponding to circumcision, would probably as a matter of course be administered to the other. Those, as Meyer, whodeny any such inference, forget, as it seems to me, that it is not personal ABCDF ΚΙΡΝ ἃ bede ghkl mno 17. 47 f 14—16. “vapilera, * χωριζέσθω. ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν YTols τοιούτοις, 5 ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ * κέκληκεν ΄ lal Ὁ ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός. 28. ch. xvi. 16,18. Acts xxii. 22 reff. only ζ. b John ix. 25. 14. Jonah iii. 9. 15. om ἡ FPN?! [k'] w[Ser states that m omits 4] Chr-ms,. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS, A. 16 ἃ γί γὰρ * οἶδας, γύναι, 2 Kings xii. 22. c Acts xix. 2 (Ὁ) reff. 525 οὐ " δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ) wey. i0,1. x Acts vil. 6 reff. see ver. 39. ΡΟΝ ν ” y neut., Rom. be ey τον avopa i. 32 al. masc., ver. z— Gal.i.6. Eph. iv. 4. 1 Thess. iv. 7. a here Eccl. iii. 21 ABN compl.(elée Ed-vat. Ald.j Joel ii. vuas ACK! copt (sic Treg) [Euthal-ms ] Damase Thl Pel Sedul Bede: txt BDFLN?® rel latt syrr goth wth arm Nys, Chr, Thdrt Phot{-c,}] ic Ambrst. (P def.) holiness which is here predicated of the children, any more than of the unbelieving husband or wife, but holiness of dedication, by strict dependence on one dedicaled. Notwithstanding this ayidrns, the Chris- tian child is individually born in sin anda child of wrath ; and individually needs the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, just as much as the Jewish child needed the typical purifying of circumcision, and the sacrificial atone- ments of the law. So that in this ἁγιότης of the Christian child there is nothing in- consistent with the idea, nor with the practice, of Infant Baptism. — On νῦν δέ, see note, ch. v. 11. 15.] But ¢f the wish for separation (implied by the pre- sent xwpiferai,—is for being separated, see Winer, edn. 6, αὶ 40. 2. a, and compare John x. 32, xiii. 6, 27) proceed from the side of the UNBELIEVER (emphasis on 6 ἄπιστος), let him (or her) depart (be sepa- rated off). ov δεδούλ.] οὐκ ἔχει ἀνάγκην ὃ πιστὸς ἢ ἣ πιστὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀπίσ- τοις τοιαύτην, οἵα αὐτῷ ἐπίκειται ἐπὶ τῶν πιστῶν. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ παντὶ τρόπῳ, χωρὶς λόγῳ πορνείας, οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων τοὺς συναφθέντας χωρισθῆναι" ἐνταῦθα δέ, ἂν μὲν. συνευδοκῇ τὸ ἄπιστον μέρος τῷ πιστῷ συνοικεῖν, δεῖ μὴ λύειν τὸ συνοικέ- σιον. ἂν δὲ στασιάζῃ καὶ τὴν λύσιν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, οὐ δεδούλωται ὃ πιστὸς εἰς τὸ μὴ χω- ρισθῆναι. Photius, in cumenius. ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις may be taken as mase., in the case of such persons,—as above by Phot. :—but the ἐν seems harsh; it is better therefore to render it, in such cases. ἐν δὲ cip.] Not = εἰς εἰρήνην [Ε. V.], but signifying the moral ‘element iz which we are called to be: see reff. and ver. 22 below. The meaning is, ‘ let the un- believer depart, rather than by attempting to retain the union, endanger that peace of household and peace of spirit, which is part of the calling of a Christian.’ Observe, (1) that there is no contradiction, in this licence of breaking off such a mar- riage, to the command of our Lord in Matt. v. 32,—because the Apostle ex- pressly asserts, ver. 12, that our Lord’s words do not apply to such marriages as are here contemplated. They were spoken to those within the covenant, and as such apply immediately to the wedlock of Christians (ver. 10), but not to mixed marriages. De Wette denies this, and holds that Paul is speaking only of the Christian’s duty in cases where the mar- riage is already virtually broken off,—aud by his remarks on Matt. v. 32, seems to tuke πορνεία in a wide sense, and to regard it as a justifiable cause of divorce because it is such a breaking off. This however appears hardly consistent with ver. 12; for, if it were so, there would be a command of the Lord regarding this case. At all eveuts, we may safely assume that where the Apostle is distinctly referring to our Lord’s command, and supplying what it did not contain, there can be no real in- ‘consistency : if such appear to be, it must be in our apprehension, not in his words. (2) That the question of re-marrying after such a separation, is here left open: on this, see note on Matt. v. 32. (3) That not a word here said can be so strained as to imply any licence to contract marriages with unbelievers. Only those already contracted are dealt with: the ἑτεροζυγεῖν ἀπίστοις is expressly forbidden, 2 Cor. vi. 14, and by implication below, ver. 39. 16.] This verse is generally understood as a ground for remaining united, as ver. 13, in hope that conversion of the unbelieving party may follow. Thus ver. 15 isregarded as altogether parenthetical. But (1) this interpretation is harsh as regards the con- text, for ver. 15 is evidently not paren- thetical,—and (2) it is hardly gram- matically admissible (see below, for it makes εἰ = εἰ μή,---« What knowest thou .... whether thou shalt nof save... .?’ Lyra seems first to have proposed the true rendering, which was afterwards adopted hesitatingly by Estius, and of late decided- ly by Meyer, De Wette, and Bisping: viz. that the verse is ποέ a ground for remain- ing united, in hope, &c.,—but a ground for consummating a separation, and not mar- ring the Christian’s peace for so uncertain a prospect as that of converting the un- believing party. τί οἶδας ei thus preserves its strict sense, What knowest thou (about the question) whether . . . .? and the verse coheres with the words immediately pre- ceding, ἐν εἰρήνῃ κέκλ. ἡμᾶς ὃ 8. I may observe, in addition to Meyer and De W.’s remarks, that the position of the words 526 , xX 4 σώσεις; ἢ ὃ d .- Rom. xi. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. b io » be > \ “' οἰδας, ἄνερ, “εὖ τὴν γυναίκα VEL. d , σωσεις; 14 reff. ΠΣ 17 6 ᾽ Η f ce , an os g ee to td , fv ec e—a pb ete Gal. ws μὴ εκαστῳ ς εμερ €V O sia eit: ἘΦΘΒΕΝ ὡς ἥ .ὦΣ, ce ΄ i? Η / Ξ [ lad ee ὦ KeKANKEV O Geos, οὕτως ' περιπτατείτω᾽ καὶ οὕτως EV ταῖς f constr., ch. k , 18 1 , hi. 9. “Rom, Ἰ ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις * διατάσσομαι. ΠΕεριτετμημένος xil. = ’ > ΄ ’ eM τὶς S™ ἐκλήθη, μὴ " ἐπισπάσθω" ἐν 5 ἀκροβυστίᾳ © κέκληταί ...2 ii. S$. 9.0 x. 13. Heb. vii ‘ii. 2. Josh. xiii. 7. h = ver. 16 reff. i = ch. iii, 3 reff. j plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. k = ch. xvi. 1 reff. 1Lukei. 59. Acts vii.8. Gal. ii. 3 al. L. ἘΝ exc. John vii, 22. Gen. xvii. 10 al. m hypothet. indic., ver. 27. James vy. 13. n here only $. Isa. ν. 18. o Rom. iii. 30 reff. 16. yury and ανηο F. 17. peuepikey BR}. [ P def. ] Thdrt [Damasc] : A Bi(sic: euepioev A: [Syr}. Geos (twice) 32-3. 63. 93 goth : see table) CDFN m 17 latt Syr copt arm [{Euthal-ns Ambrst].—o κα bef o Os εμερισεν and o ks κεκληκεν k. (P def.) πασαις bef ras εκκλησιαις X 17. 47 vulg [ Origy(omg tars) }. for ἡ τι, εἰ τι A. rec transp kuptos and θεος, with KL rel Syr Chr, o xs and o xs o 6s G}[and lat]: txt ins ka bef exacrov ws Ἐὶ for διατασσομαι, διδασκω (see ch iv. 17) D'F, doceo latt lat-tf. 18. εκληθη bef Ist τις D!-3F [ copt basm ] goth. (conformation to former), with D3KL rel Chr, Thdrt : arm [ Euthal-ms], tis κεκλ. D'F [ Damasc]. further establishes this rendering. If the point of the argument had been the im- portance, or the prospect, of saving (= con- verting) the unbelieving party, the ar rangement would probably | have been εἶ σώσεις τὸν ἄνδρα, and εἰ σώσεις τὴν γυναῖκα, whereas now the verb holds in both clauses a subordinate place, rather subjective to the person addressed, than the main object in the mind of the writer. Those who take εἰ for εἰ μή, attempt to justify it by reff. 2 Kings, Joel, Jonah, where the LXX have for the Heb. yy Ἢ, τίς oldev ei, to express hope: but (1) in every one of those passages the verb stands in the emphatic position, and (2) the LXX use this very expression to signify un- certainty, e.g. ref. Eccles., τίς εἴδε(οῖδεν ABN: add τό AN%) πνεῦμα υἱῶν τοῦ ἀν- θρώπου, εἰ ἀναβαίνει αὐτὸ (add eis ΑΒΟΝ) ἄνω; The rendering then of the verse will be as follows: (Let the unbeliever depart: hazard not for an uncertainty the peace in which you ought to be living as Christians): for what assurance hast thou, Ὁ wife, whether thou shalt be the means of thy husband's conversion ? Or what assurance hast thou, 0 husband, whether thou shalt be the means of thy wife’s conversion? “ This interpretation is the only one compatible with the obvious sense of ver. 15, and of the expression (not τί oldas εἰ μή, but) τί οἶδας εἰ σώσεις ; and is also in exact harmony with the general tenor of the Apostle’s argument, which is not to urge a union, but to tolerate a separation.” Stanley; the rest of whose note is deeply interesting as to the historical influence of the verse as commonly misunderstood. 17.) εἰ μή takes an exception, by way of caution, to the foregoing motive for not remaining together (yer. 10). The Christian partner rec (for κεκληται me τις EKANON txt ΑΒΡΝ a m 17 copt goth might carry that motive foo far, and be tempted by it to break the connexion on his own part ; a course already prohibited (vv. 12—14). Therefore the Apostle adds, But (q. d. only be careful not to make this a ground for yourselves causing the sepa- ration) as to each (ἑκάστ. ὡς = ὡς ἑκάστ., reff.) the Lord distributed (his lot), as (i.e. κλήσει, ver. 20) God has called each, so (in that state, without change) let him walk (reff.). The et μή has raised con- siderable difficulties. (1) some cursives, with syr-marg and Sevrn., read εἰ τὴν γυναῖκα σώσει, ἢ wn;—and Knatechbull, al. +» join εἰ μή similarly ἃ to the foregoing ; ei... . odoets,—ei uh. But as De W. remarks, this would be, as Matt. xxii. 17, ἢ ov: and then we should have the strictly parallel clauses of ver. 16 rendered unequal, by an appendage being attached to the second, which the first has not: be- sides that ver. 17 would be disjoined alto- gether. (2) Pott would supply χωρίζεται, —Mosheim, Vater, and Riickert, σώσεις, after εἰ un. But so, to say nothing of the irrelevancy of the idea thus introduced, εἰ δὲ μή, or ef δὲ καὶ μή (as Meyer), would be required. (3) Theodoret, al., join all as far as κύριος to the foregoing : ‘ What knowest thou, &c., except in so far as the Lord has apportioned to each?’ But thus the evidently parallel members, ἑκάστ. ὡς ἐμ. ὃ κύρ., and ἑκάστ. ὡς KEKA. 6 θ., would be separated, and a repetition occasioned which, except in the case of intended parallelism, would be alien from St. Paul’s habit of writing. οὕτως . διατ.] τοῦτο εἶπεν. ἵνα τῷ ἔχειν καὶ ἤλλον magna προθυμότεροι περὶ τὴν ὑπακοὴν διατεθῶσι. Theophyl. 18—24.] Examples of the precept Just given. εἶτα συνήθως ἀπὸ τοῦ προκειμένου εἰς ἕτερα μεταβαίνει, πᾶσι νομοθετῶν τὰ 17—22. ΠΡῸΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. 57 cre ny |} ιτεμνέσθ 19 ἡ Ῥπεριτομὴ 4 οὐδέν ἐ ἘΠ δα Tis, μὴ 'περιτεμνέσθω. ἡ ριτομὴ “ οὐδέν ἐστιν, PPautony, / καὶ ἡ 5 ἀκροβυστία “ οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τ τήρησις * ἐντο- λῶν * θεοῦ. μενέτω. 54. ch. xiii. 2. 2 ΟὟΥ, xii. 11. constr., see ch. iii. 7. 12only. Ezra x. 3. xxvii. 17. ver. 31. ch. ix. 12, 15. 19. om Ist 7 F. 21. αλλα D'. κατάλληλα. Theodoret. First example: CIRCUMCISION. 18. ἐκλήθη) Was any one called in cir- cumcision, —i. e. circumcised at the time of his conversion. ἐπισπάσθω) By a surgical operation; see Theophyl., Wetst.,— Winer, RealwGrterbuch, art. Be- schneidung,—Jos. Antt. xii. 5. 1; 1 Macc. i. 15; Celsus de Re Medica, vii. 25 (in Wetst.). The practice usually was adopted by those who wished to appear like the Gentiles, and to cast off their ancient faith and habits. Among the Christians a strong anti-Judaistic feeling might lead to it. περιτεμνέσθω | See Gal. v. 2, al. 19. ] See Gal. v. 6, where our τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ is expressed by πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη ; and Gal. vi. 15, where it is given by καινὴ κτίσις. Cf. an interesting note in Stanley, on the relation of these three descriptions. After θεοῦ, supply τὰ ΤΡ ΠΕ eotty: see ch, ili. 7... _ 20.] formal repetition of the general precept, as again ver. 24. κλῆσις is not the calling in life, for it never has that mean- ing either in classical or Hellenistic Greek (in the example which Wetst. gives from Dion. Hal. Antt. iv. 20, κλήσεις is used to express the Latin ‘ e/asses,—&s καλοῦσιν “Ρωμαῖοι κλήσεις, and so is not a (reek word at all); but strictly calling (" vo- eatio’) by God, as in ref. The κλῆσις of a circumcised person would be ὦ calling in circumeision,—and by this he was to abide. ἐν τῇ - ., ἐν ταύτῃ] See ch. vi. 4: emphatic. 21—24.] Second example: SLAVERY. Wert thou called {converted) [being] a slave, let it not be a trouble to thee: but if thou art even able to become free, use it (i.e. remain in slavery) rather. This rendering, which is that of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., (£cum., Phot., Camerar., Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, al., is required by the usage of the particles, εἰ xat,—by which, see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 139, the καί, ‘also,’ or ‘even,’ does not belong to the εἶ, as in καὶ εἰ, but is spread over the whole contents of the concessive clause : so Soph. Gd. Tyr. 302, «τόλιν μέν, εἰ καὶ 18 —20.] 20 ἕκαστος ἐν TH ἃ κλήσει ἡ ἢ ἐκλήθη, ἐν ταύτῃ 21 δοῦλος » ἐκλήθης, μή σοι Y μελέτω" ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, μᾶλλον “ χρῆσαι. s Sir. xxxyv. (xxxii.) 23. u = Rom. xi. 29 (reff.). 1 Tim. i. 8. y. 23. om from ἐστιν to ἐστιν F. om «a F ms-of-vulg copt. Vii. 22, 23. Acts vii. 8. - x. 45. xi. 2. Gen. xvii. 13. Exod. iv. 26, Jer. xi. 16 only. 92 S \ q = Matt. ~“O YAP xxiii. 16, 18. John viii. r = here (Acts iy. 2. νυ. 18) only +. Wisd. vi. 18 al. ellipt. t Matt. xv. 3 ||. Rey. xii. 17. xiv. Υ ch, ix. 9 reff. w Acts Prov. x. 26. 20. τουτω A. μὴ βλέπεις, φρονεῖς δ᾽ ὅμως, ofa νόσῳ ξύνεστιν. Plato, Rep. p. 387, εἰ δ᾽ οὖν καὶ μή ἐστιν ὅμοιον, φαίνεται δὲ τῷ ἐρωτηθέντι τοιούτων. Aristoph. Lysistr. 254, χώρει, Apaxns, ἡγοῦ βάδην, εἰ Kat τὸν ὦμον ἀλγεῖς. Thucyd. ii. 64, μήτε ἐμὲ δι’ ὀργῆς ἔχετε... εἰ καὶ ἐπελθόντες οἱ ἐναντίοι ἔδρασαν, ἅπερ εἰκὸς ἦν μὴ ἐθελησάντων ὑμῶν ὑπακούειν. See more examples in Hartung. It is also required by the context: for the burden of the whole passage is, ‘Let each man remain in the state in which he was called.’ Itisgiven in the Syr.: which has “μα. 992» ie aS “choose for thyself that thou mayest serve,” or simply, ~ “ prefer servitude :’”’ not as Meyer from the erroneous Latin of Tremelius, “ elige tibi potius quam ut servias” (I am indebted for this correction of some of my earlier editions to the kindness of the Rey. Henry Craik, of Bristol). The other interpreta- tion,—mentioned by Chrys., and given by Erasm., Luther. (Stanley is mistaken in quoting him as favourable to the other interpretation: his words are, ‘Sift du ein Knedht berufen, forge der nicht: doch, Eannft du frei werden, fo brauche def viel lieber 7), Beza, Calvin, Grot., and almost all the moderns,—understands τῇ ἐλευϑερίᾳ after χρῆσαι: ‘but if thou art able to become free, take advantage of it rather’ The objections to this are, (1) the position of καί, which in this case must have been after δύνασαι,---εἰ δύνασαι καὶ ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, or have been absent altogether. (2) The clause would hardly have begun with ἀλλὰ εἰ, but with εἰ 8€—so the alter- native suppositions in vv. 9, 11, 15, 28, 36. The ἀλλά brings out a strong opposition to the μελέτω, and implies a climax which would ill suit a merely parenthetic clause, but must convey the point of the sentence. (3) The absence of a demonstrative pro- noun after χρῆσαι, by which we are thrown back, not on the secondary subject of the sentence, ἐλευθερίᾳ, but on the primary, δουλείᾳ. (4) Its utter inconsistency with the general context. The Apostle would thus be giving two examples of the pre- cept ἕκαστος ἐν ᾧ ἐκλήθη ἐν τούτῳ με«' 528 x here only t. ἐν κυρίῳ Jos. ere vii. 1-2. Imad ὁμοίως ὁ ἐλεύθερος © κληθεὶς δοῦλός 49." (5 at, 92 ie (90 20.) wy τιμῆς y ss ee y ch. vi. 20 - reff.) 24 ἕκαστος ἐν 7@ z Acts xvii. 23 Ε δι « δι ἃ παρὰ θεῶ a= here - ρ ri only (?). see Luke xviii. 27. John viii. 38. 22. rec aft ouows ins καὶ (as being usual aft ομοιως : syr-w-ast copt eth arm Chr, Damase ΤῊ] Ge Orig-int, Ambr, : om ABPN 17 vulg Syr goth Chr-ms, Thdrt Ambr, Aubrst Pel Bede. bef ἐστιν FN! c copt. 24. αδελφοι bef ev w εκληθη D(-@nre D') F Ambrst : rec ins tw bef dew, with Ae k Gc: om BDFKLPNR rel Thdrt, Damase ΤῊ], Thdrt,. vérw, one of which would convey a re- commendation of the contrary course. See this followed out in Chrysostom. (5) Its entire contradiction to ver. 22: see below. (6) It would be quite inconsis- tent with the teaching of the Apostle, —that in Christ (Gal. iii. 28) freeman and slave are all one,—and with his remarks on the urgency and shortness of the time in this chapter (ver. 29 ff.),—to turn out of his way to give a precept merely of worldly wisdom, that a slave should be- come free if he could. χράομαι in sucha connexion, which suits better the remaining in, enduring, labour- ing under, giving one’s self up to, an already-existing state, than the adopting or taking advantage of a new one; cf. such expressions as τοιούτῳ μόρῳ ἐχρή- σατο 6 παῖς, Herod. i. 117: συμφορᾷ, συντυχίᾳ, εὐτυχίᾳ, χρῆσθαι, often in He- τοῦ, : ἀμαθίᾳ χρῆσθαι, and the like. The instance quoted by Bloomfield for ‘ become free, ἑκὼν yap οὐδεὶς δουλίῳ χρῆται Wye, #Esch. Again. 953, telis just the other way. There χρῆται is used not of entering, but of submitting to, the yoke of slavery, as here. 22.| Ground of the above precept. For the slave who was called in the Lord (not, as E. V. and De Wette, ‘ He who is called in the Lord, being a slave, which would be δοῦλος κληθείς, see above, δοῦλος ἐκλήθης: ἐν κυρίῳ, as the element in which what is about to be stated takes place) is the Lord’s freed- man (““ ἀπελεύθερος with genit.is not here in the ordinary sense of ‘libertus alicujus,’ ‘any one’s manumitted slave? for the former master was sin or the devil, see on ch. vi. 20;—but only a freedman belong- ing to Christ, viz. treed by Christ from the service of another. This the reader would understand as a matter of course.” Meyer): similarly he that was called being free (not here, κληθεὶς ἐλεύθερος, see above) is the slave of Christ. Christ’s service is perfect freedom, and the Chris- tian’s freedom is the service of Christ. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. " κληθεὶς δοῦλος " ἐκλήθη, ἀδελφοί, ἐν (7) The import of Vit. * ἀπελεύθερος κυρίου ἐστίν' χριστοῦ. fa » ΄ μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων. ἐστιν “τούτῳ μενέτω so also δε kat), with KL rel de καὶ DF 1 m(Treg) : χριστον om αδελφοι al 39. 120 (Chr,) But here the Apostle takes, in each case, one member of this double antithesis from the outer world, one from the spiritual. The (actual) slave is (spiritually) free: the (actually) free is a (spiritual) slave. So that the two are so mingled, in the Lord, that the slave need not trouble himself about his slavery, nor seek for this world’s freedom, seeing he has a more glorious freedom in Christ, and seeing also that his brethren who seem to be free in this world are in fact Christ’s servants, as he is a servant. It will be plain that the reason given in this verse is quite inconsistent with the prevalent modern rendering of ver. 21. 23. | Following out of δοῦλός ἐστιν χριστοῦ, by reminding them of the PRICE PAID whereby Christ PURCHASED them for His (ch. vi. 20): and precept thereupon, BECOME NOT SLAVES OF MEN: i.e. ‘do not allow your relations to human society, whether of freedom or slavery, to bring you into bondage so as to cause you anxiety to change the one or increase the other.’ Chrys., al., think the precept directed against ὀφθαλμοδουλεία, and ge- neral regard to men’s opinion. But it is better to restrict it (however it may legiti- mately be applied generally) to the case in hand. Hammond, Knatchbull, Michaelis, al., understand it as addressed to the free, and meaning that they are not to sell themselves into slavery: but this is evi- dently wrong: as may be seen by the change to the second person plur. as ad- dressing all his readers: besides that a new example would have been marked as in vv. 18, 21. See Stanley’s note. 24.| The rule is again repeated, but with the addition παρὰ θεῷ, reminding them of the relations of Christ’s freedman and Christ’s slave, and of the price paid, just mentioned:—of that relation to ABDF KLPx bede ghkl mno 17. 47 God in which they stood by means of their Christian calling. “The usual ren- dering, Deo inspectante (Grot.), i. e. ‘ per- petuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu ver- sari’ (Beza), does not so well suit the local- 23—27. ΠΡῸΣ KOPIN@OIOTS A. 529 "Ὁ Tlept δὲ τῶν ἢ παρθένων ° ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω, » Paul, here de γνώμην δὲ “ δίδωμι ὡς * ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ κυρίου 8 πιστὸς &c. (7 times and 2 Cor. xi. 2only. Matt. Ca / 9 a \ . ΄ \ A i. 23 (from εἶναι. 78 νομίζω οὖν τοῦτο ἢ καλὸν ‘imapyew διὰ THY Isa. Mi td) ’ “ > , [7 \ ᾽ ΄ al. : * ἐνεστῶσαν ' ἀνάγκην, ὅτι ἢ καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ ™ οὕτως ° Rom: xvi 26 3 9 , / \ , 7 ὰ =ch.i. 10 εἶναι. 27 υ δέδεσαν γυναικί, μὴ ° ζήτει, Ρ λύσιν" 4 λέλυσαι ἣ Get}. Ὁ f pass., Rom. xi. 30, 31 reff. δ᾽ = ch. iv..2 al. fr. h = ver. 1. one μεν τ Ξ viii. 16 reff. Ny k Rom. viii. 38. ch. iii. 22. Gal. i.4, 2 Thess. ii. 2. 2 Tim. iii. 1. Heb. ix. 9 only. 1 Macc. xii. 44. (see note.) 1 = Luke xxi. 23. 2Cor. vi. 4. xii. 10. 1 Thess. iii. 7. 1 Kings xxii. 2. : m = ver. 40. n = Rom. vii. 2. ver. 39. o = Matt. vi. 33. Col.iii. 1. 1 Pet. iii. 11. 1 Macc. ii. 29. p here only. Eccl. vii. 30 (viii. 1). Wisd. viii. 8 only. 26. aft or: καλον ins εστιν D!F [latt syrr]. word μενέτω. Meyer. 25—38. | Ad- vice (with some digressions connected with the subject) concerning the MARRIAGE OF VIRGINS. 25. | παρθένων is not, as Tbecdor-mops., Bengel, Olsh., al., wnmar- ried persons of both sexes, a meaning which, though apparently found in Rev. xiv. 4 (see note there), is perfectly un- necessary here, and appears to have been introduced from a mistaken view of vv. 26—28. The emphasis is on ἐπιταγήν —command of the Lord have I none, i. 6. no expressed precept: so that, as before, there is no marked comparison between 6 κύριος and ἐγώ. πιστὸς εἶναι] to be faithful, as in ref..—as a steward and dispenser of the hidden things of God, and, among them, of such directions as you cannot make for yourselves, but re- quire one so entrusted to impart to you. This sense, which has occurred in the esti- mate given of himself in this very Epistle, is better than the more general ones of true(Billroth, Riickert) or delzeving (Olsh., Meyer, De Wette). 26. | The ques- tion of the marriage of virgins is one involving the expediency of contracting marriage im general: this he deals with now, on grounds connected with the then pressing necessity. ovv, then, fol- lows on γνώμ. δίδωμι, and introduces the γνώμη. τοῦτο indicates what is coming, viz. τὸ οὕτως εἶναι. καλόν, see note on ver. 1: the best way. τὴν ἐνεστῶσ. avayK.| the instant neces- sity: viz. that prophesied by the Lord, Matt. xxiv. 8, 21, &c.: which shall precede His coming: see especially ver. 19 there : not, the cares of marriage, as Theophyl., διὰ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ SuskoAlas, κ-. τὰ τοῦ γάμου ὀχληρά: nor persecutions, as Pho- tius in Ecum., al., which are only a part of the apprehended troubles. These the Apostle regards as instant, already begun: for this is the meaning of ἐνεστῶσαν, not imminent, shortly to come: see reff. and Jos. Antt. xvi. 6. 2, τὸ ἔθνος τῶν "Iov- δαίων εὐχάριστον εὑρέθη, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ ἐνεστῶτι καιρῷ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ προ- yeyernuévw,—where all time future is Vot, I1. q = Acts xxii. 30. Ps. cxly. 7. om to F Meth,. evidently excluded. See note on 2 Thess. ii. 2, where this distinction is very im- portant. Ort Kad. avO......] De Wette takes ὅτι as because, understanding τοῦτο above = τὸ παρθένον εἶναι, ‘ that this (virginity) is best on account of the instant necessity, because it is ( generally) best for a man so to be (i. 6. unmarried).’ But this seems constrained, and tauto- logical, and the only rescue of it from the charge of tautology is found in the word ‘generally,’ which is not in the text. Far better, with Meyer and most interpreters, to view the sentence as an anacoluthon, begun with one construction, τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν, and finished, without regard to this, when on account of the intervening words it became necessary to restate the καλόν, with another construction, ὅτι, &e. Thus we shall have it, literally rendered : I think then this to be the best way on account of the instant necessity, that it is the best way for a man thus to be. ἀνθρώπῳ, not as in ver. 1 (which in its out- ward form will not bear the wider mean- ing), but here purposely general, includ- ing those treated of, young females. οὕτως = ὡς κἀγώ as ver..8? or perhaps. ὧς ἐστίν, which seems better on account of the following context, ver. 27. This, in the case of the unmarried, would amount to the other: and the case of virgins is now that especially under consideration. 21.) τὸ οὕτως εἶναι restated and illustrated : neither the married nor the unmarried are to seek for a change. The general recommendation here is referable alike to ail cases of marriage, and does not touch on the prohibition of ver. 10,—only dissuading from a spirit of change, in consideration of the ἐνεστῶσα ἀνάγκη. It seems better to take the verse thus, than with Meyer and De Wette, to regard it as inserted to guard against misunder- standing of the preceding γνώμη of the Apostle. λέλυσαι does not imply previous marriage, but as Phot., οὐχὶ πρὸς τοὺς συναφθέντας, εἶτα διαλυθέντας,.. .. GAN ἅπλῶς πρὸς τοὺς μὴ συνελθόντας ὅλως εἰς γάμον κοινωνίαν, ἀλλὰ λελὺυ- M mw 530 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. Vib ἀπὸ γυναικός, μὴ ° ζήτει γυναῖκα. r γαμέω, of the woman 23 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ yaunons, ν. > ee \ aN r , ς b / ’ “ νει ἢ. OUX ἥμαρτες, καὶ ἐὰν " γήμῃ [77] παρθένος, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν : ἢ a a \ “ ΄ a oN ee ee ivonly. οἰ SOX δὲ τῇ capKi " ἕξουσιν ἃ οἱ τοιοῦτοι, ἐγὼ δὲ ὑμῶν ly. of the a , xr ¢ \ man, Matt. v.Y φείδομαι. 29 ἡ τοῦτο δέ ἡ φημι, ἀδελφοί, ὁ καιρὸς * συν- 32 αἱ. τ (2 Macc. xiv. ~ > \ x y , “ Ν c w# - 20 bis only.) εσταλμεένος ἐστὶν TO Y AOLTOV, Wa Καὶ οἱ ἔχοντες γυναίκας s John xvi. 33. Rev. ii. 10. Sir. li. 3. w = ch. xv. 50. see ch. i. 12. : xxvi.45. Heb. χ. 13. (Eph. vi. 10 ¢dat .2\Cor. xii. 7. x = here (Acts v. 6) only t+. Sir. iv. 31. reff.) vy Rom. xi. 21 reff. y — Matt. u ver. 15. see Tobit xii. 13. 28. rec for yaunons, ynuns (to conform to the follg), with KUL rel Orig[-c,] Chr, Thdrt [Damasey..} ; λαβης γυναικα DF: acceperis uxorem latt {Tert, Ambrst|: duxeris Tert,: txt A(-on) ΒΓΡῚΝ m 17 Bas [ Euthal-ms | Damasce. for ynun, yaun DF. om ἡ BF: ins ADKLPR rel [Orig-c Meth, Bas, ]. ins ev bef τη σαρκι D'{-gr] F[-gr]. 29. elz ins ot: bef o καιρος (supplementary: see ch. xv. 50, where there is no var readg), with DF de ἢ 1 (syrr) copt [basm arm Damasc] Thl Orig{-int,] Tert,: om ABKLPRX rel vulg [spec] Eus, Meth, Bas, (Chr,) Thdrt [Tert, Ambrst]. συννε- σταλμενον(ϑ10) &. rec To Aoirov bet ἐστιν, with ΠΡ], rel Thdrt [ Damasc] ΤῊ]: ἐστιν λοιπὸν εστιν F 67? latt [(Clem,) Orig-int,] Tert, Jer, {Ambrst Augyepe]: txt AB D!2(om το D') PX a! m 17 (Syr ?) syr copt arm Eus-ms, Bas, [Kuthal-ms]}. There is great var in the punctn :—[elz] has συν. 70 A. ἐστιν", with L ἄς syrr copt [basm arm Chr, Damasc] Thdrt ; [Steph] συνεστ." to λοιπὸν ἐστιν wal, with] DF 67-8. 71 latt lat-ff (Aug,: To λοιπὸν twicealiq) ; TUVETT. ἐστιν" TO λοιπ. B?: συνεστ. ἐστιν τὸ λοιπον τη. (716 varr have appy arisen from a desire to fix the connexion of to λοιπὸν more definitely.) μένους ὄντας Tov τοιούτου Seouov,—and Estius, “ intelligit liberum a conjugio, sive uxorem aliquando habuerit, sive non.” 28.] Not sin, but outward trouble, will be incurred by contracting marriage, whether in the case of the unmarried man or of the virgin; and it is to spare them this, that he gives his advice. But ifalso (καί, of the other alternative : see ver. 21) thou shalt have married, thou didst not sin (viz. when thou marriedst); and if a virgin (if the art. is to stand, it is generic) shall have married, she sinned not; but such persons (viz. of γήμαντες) shall have tribulation in the flesh (it is doubt- ful, as Meyer remarks, whether the dative belongs to the substantive,—trouble for the flesh,—or to the verb,—shall have in the flesh trouble): but I (emphatic—my motive is) am sparing you (endeavouring to spare you this θλῖψιν τῇ σαρκί, by ad- vising you to keep single). 29—31.] He enforces the foregoing advice by so- lemnly reminding them of the shortness of the time, and the consequent duty of sitting loose to all worldly ties and em- loyments. 29. τοῦτο δέ φημι... 4. d. ‘ What I just now said, of marrying being no sin, might dispose you to look on the whole matter as indifferent: my motive, the sparing you outward afflic- tion, may be underrated in the importance of its bearing: but I will add this solemn consideration.’ 6 καιρ. συνεστ. ἐστ. τὸ λοιπόν] The time that remains is short: lit., ‘the time is shortened hence- forth :’—i.e. the interval between now and the coming of the Lord has arrived at an extremely contracted period. These words have been variously misunderstood. (1) 6 καιρός has been by some (Calvin, Estius, al.) interpreted ‘the space of man’s life on earth: which, however true it may be, and however legitimate this application of the Apostle’s words, certainly was not in his mind, nor is it consistent with Ais usage of 6 καιρός : see Rom. xiii. 11; Eph. v. 16,—or with that in the great prophecy of our Lord which is the key to this chapter, Luke xxi. 8; Mark xiii. 33. (2) συνε- σταλμένος has been understood as mean- ing calamitosus (so Rosenm., Riickert, Olshausen, al.). But it never has this sig- nification. In such passages as 1 Macc. iii. 6, v. 3; 2 Mace. vi. 12, mapakad@.... μὴ συστέλλεσθαι διὰ Tas συμφοράς : 3 Macc. v. 33, τῇ ὁράσει... συνεστάλη,---ἰῦ has the meaning of humbling, depressing, which would be obviously inapplicable to καιρός. The proper meaning of συστέλ- λεσθαι, to be contracted, is found in Diod. Sic. i. 41, διὸ καὶ τὸν Νεῖλον εὐλόγως κατὰ τὸν χειμῶνα μικρὸν εἶναι καὶ συ- στέλλεσθαι. It is, as Schrader well ren- ders it, ‘in Rirzem ftiirzt die alte Welt zu- fammen.’ συστέλλεσθαι and συστολή are the regular grammatical words used of the shortening of a syllable in prosody. (3) τὸ λοιπόν has been by some (Tertull. ad Uxorem i. 5 (vol. i. p. 1288), Jer. de perp. virg. B. V. M. adv. Helv. 20 (vol. ii. p. 227), on Ezek. vii. 18 (lib. ii., vol. v. p. 69), on Keel. iii. (vol. iii, p. 410),— Vulg., Erasm., Luther, Calvin, Estius ; also Εἰ. V. and Lachm.) joined to what JSollows ; ‘it remains that both they, &e. ABDFK LPRab cdetg hklim nol7, 47 28—82. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. 531 e AG af Φ Ω \ ΄ f e \ / “ WS μὴ ἔχοντες WO), 30 Kal οἱ κλαίοντες ὡς μὴ κλαίοντες, τυ δα = 2 Cor. vi. / ς \ / \ ’ ΄ καὶ οἱ χαίροντες ὡς μὴ χαίροντες, καὶ οἱ * ἀγοράζοντες * ἴο, sesh e , \ 7 ial; ὡς μὴ δ᾿ κατέχοντες, 31: καὶ οἱ ἢ χρώμενον τὸν ΚΟσμον, υ ver. 21 reff ὡς μὴ “ καταχρώμενοι" ἃ κόσμου τούτου. only. w.acc., 3 Macc. v. 22. exliii. 4. e Phil. ii. 8 only. 15. vii. 23 only. om wot F arm. 80. for κλαίοντες (twice), κλεθοντες F. acc., Wisd. παράγει yap TO °aynua τοῦ "1.1. BR! ρ Ὗ ¥ ρ ἔα XE &c. see note. , \ ς a > 3 Ὁ. 5 82 θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς fapmepimvous εἶναι. °Sniyt. Ep. Jer. 28 ip. Jer. d intrans., Matt. ix. 9 (and always, exc. 1 Johnii. 8,17). Ps. Isa. iii. 17 only. f{M att. xxviii. 14 only +. Wisd. vi. 31. rec (for τον κοσμονὴ Tw κοσμω TovTw (gramml corrn, and supplementary addn), with D?-3K LPN? rel (vulg[F-lat spec] syrr) [ Eus, Ephr, Bas, Chr, Euthal-ms Sevrn-c, | Thdrt. ΤῊ] [Damase (Orig-int, Tert, Cypr, Ambrst)]: tov κοσμον τουτον D*[and lat] F[-gr]: napaxp. ἴ, Bas, Th Tw(sic, appy) κοσμον τουτον 17: txt ABN! coptt. drt, ; χρωμενοι 121 latt [Cypr, Ambrst] (not Tert;). for καταχρ., 32. om de F ο 61 fuld D-lat [spec] Meth, [Ambrst]: yap 38 Clem. But thus (a) the sense of ἵνα will not be satisfied—see below: (8) the usage of τὸ λοιπόν is against it, which would require it to stand alone, and the sense not to be carried on as it is in ‘ swperest ut,’ τὸ λοι- πόν, va....,—see reff. and Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8; (1 Thess. iv. 1;) 2 Thess. iii. 1. (vy) The continuity of the passage would be very harshly broken: whereas by the other rendering all proceeds naturally. We have exactly parallel usages of τὸ λοιπόν in reff. ἵνα καὶ... The end for which the time has been (by God) thus gathered up into a short compass : in order that both they, &c.: i.e. in order that Christians, those who wait for and shall inherit the coming kingdom, may keep themselves loosed in heart from worldly relationships and employments: that, as Meyer, “ the married may not fetter his interests to his wedlock, nor the mourner to his misfortunes, nor the joyous to his prosperity, nor the man of com- merce to his gain, nor the user of the world to his use of the world.” This is the only legitimate meaning of ἵνα with the subj. The renderings which make it = ὅτε, ‘tempus .... futurum cum ei qui uxores habent pares futuri sint non habentibus,’ Grot., or ‘ubi’ (local), are inadmissible. We may notice that ac- cording to this only right view of ἵνα, the clauses following are not precepts of the Apostle, but the objects as regards us, of the divine counsel in shortening the time. 30. ὡς μὴ κατέχοντες | as not POSSESSING (their gains). So in the line of Lucretius (iii. 984), “ Vitaque mancupio nulli datur, omnibus usu.” 31. χρώ- pevor..... καταχρώμενοι] The κατά. as in κατέχοντες, appears here to imply that intense and greedy use which turns the legitimate use intoa fault. This meaning is better than ‘aduse,’ which is allowable philologically, and is adopted by Theo- doret, Theophyl., (c., Luther, Olsh., al., but destroys the parallel. I would render them, and they who use the world, as not using it in full. So, or merely ‘as not using it,’ regarding καταχρ. = xp.,— Vulg., Calv., Grot., Estius, al., and Meyer and De Wette. χρῆσθαι with an acc. is found only here: never in classical Greek, and very rarely in Hellenistic. Almost the only undoubted instance (in ref. Wisd., A reads κτησάμενοι, and is supported by #4. In Xen. Ages. xii. 11, we have τὸ μεγαλόφρον. .. ἐχρῆτο, but most edd. read τῷ μεγαλόφρονι) seems to be in a Cretan inscription, Boeckh, Corp. Inser. ii. 400, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα χρή- μενοι, ἐν δὲ τᾷ ὁδῷ τὰς ξενικὰς θοίνας. See Bornemann, note on Acts xxvii. 17, where βοηθείας is a var. read. in some mss. παράγει yap....] gives a reason for ὃ kaip. συνεσταλμ. ἐστ. τὸ λοιπ., the clauses which have intervened being subordinate to those words: see above. Emphasis on παράγει: for the fashion (present ex- vernal form, ef. Herodian i. 9, ἀνὴρ φιλο- σόφου φέρων σχῆμα, and other examples in Wetst.) of this world is passing away (is in the act of being changed, as a passing scene in a play: cf. πάραγε πτέρυγας, Eur. Ion, 165). This shews that the time is short :—the form of this world is already beginning to pass away. Grot., al., ac- cording to the mistaken view of ver. 20, —‘non manebunt, que nunc sunt, res tranquille, sed mutabuntur in turbidas. Theophyl. and many Commentators un- derstand the saying of worldly affairs in general—txpis ὄψεώς εἰσι TA TOD παρόντος κόσμου, Kal ἐπιπόλαια :---αῦ this is in- consistent with the right interpretation of ver. 29: see there. Stanley compares a remarkable parallel, 2 Esdr. xvi. 40—44, probably copied from this passage. 32—34.] Application of what has been just said to the question of marriage. 32. θέλω δὲ... .] But (i.e. since this is so—since the time is so short, and M mM 2 539 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. VII. lal 9 A ς A A a“ gers ὁ &a@yapos ᾿μεριμνᾷ ita τοῦ κυρίου, πῶς ὃ ἀρέσῃ τῷ ἢ constr., ch, ‘ ΄ \ , an * \ an ; rn xii. 25.) Kupio ° ὁ δὲ yaunoas ὃ μεριμνᾷ ἱ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς Sarees ae a ; \ \ Tale Exod, ¥-9 (a. K ἀρέσῃ TH γυναικί. 53 καὶ | μεμέρισται καὶ ἡ γυνὴ Kal ἡ i Rom. ii. reff πὶ παρθέ ἡ 8 ἄγαμος ὃ" μεριμνᾷ ‘ta τοῦ κυρίου, ἵνα ἢ wt, ΟΣ παρθένος. ἡ ὃ ἄγαμος " μεριμνέ ὃ κυρίου, 7 ; ; A , \ A , ς \ 4 as ἁγία καὶ τῷ " σώματι Kal TO " πνεύματι" ἡ δὲ ° γαμήσασα n1 Thess. ν. 23. see ch. νυ. 3 reff. o of the woman, see ver. 28 reff. reff. m vv. 25, 28. 33. rec (for apern vv 32-3-4) apeoe:, with KLP 17(ver 33) rel Clem,[ver 33] Orig, Meth, [Euthal-ms] Epiph, Cyr,{ver 33] Ephr Thdrt Damase Thl Gc: txt ABDI 17 Eus, [Meth,(and ms,) Bas,(but mss vary) ]. for κυριω, θεω F vulg Orig Cypr. 84. rec om Ist «a, with D%{and lat] F[-gr] KL 47(Treg) rel [G-lat spee}] Chr, Thdrt, [Damasc, Tert, Ambr, Ambrst mss-in-Jer]: ins AB D!/-gr] PX 6. 17. 31. 71-3 vulg [F-lat] syrr copt [basm eth arm] Eus, Meth, Bas, Cyr[-p, Ephr, Euthal-mns] Pel Jer, Aug Fulg Primas Bede. rec om 2nd καὶ, with D! demid(and fuld) copt [basm arm spec] Tert, [Ambr, Ambrst mss-in-]Jer Aug: ins AB D#(and lat] F[-gr] KLPR 6. 31. 71-3 rel vulg [am harl tol F-lat eth] syr Eus, Meth, Bas, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damase.—weu. δε 30, μεμ. δε kar Syr. aft ἢ γυνὴ ins 7 ayouos (retaining it also after map@evos) AF2N 17 [Bas-ed Euthal-ms Aug,]; so (but omg the 2nd) BP 6. 31. 71-3 vulg [coptt] Eus, [Ambr,] Pel Jer,. om καὶ (bef τω σωματι) A D(sie, Treg)[-gr?] Ρ m 17 vulg-ed(with some mss, but agst am demid [fuld harl?]) Syr copt arm Did,[-int, Epiph, Ps-]Ath, Orig[-int, Ath-int, Pel] Tert. rec om Tw (bef cwu. and bef πνευμ.), with DF KL rel (Orig,) Meth, Did, [Bas,] Thdrt, Thl: ins ABPR a that, in order that we Christians may sit loose to the world) I wish you to be with- out worldly cares (undistracted). Then he explains how this touches on the sub- ject. πῶς apéoy—how he may please: πῶς &peoei—‘ how he shall please.’ The variety being not in reality a various reading, but only an itacism, I retain the form found in the most ancient Mss. 34.] See var. readd.: I treat here only of the text. Divided also is the (married) woman and the virgin (i.e. divided in interest (i.e. in cares and pur- suits) from one another: οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσι φροντίδα, ἀλλὰ μεμερισμέναι εἰσὶ ταῖς σπουδαῖς, Theophyl.: not merely, different from one another, as Ἐπ V., Chrys., Luth., Grot., al. Divisa est mulier et virgo D-lat G-lat Tert), It may be well to remark as to the reading, on which see Digest,—that Jerome testifies to this having been the reading of the old Latin copies, and himself sometimes quotes the passage in this form; but, when speaking of it critically, he states that it is not in the “apostolica veritas,” i.e., it would seem, the Greek as under- stood by him. ‘ Mune illud breviter admoneo in Latinis codicibus hune locum tta legi: “ Divisa est virgo et mulier ;’? quod quamquam habent suum sensum, et a me quoque pro qualitate loci sic edissertum sit, tamen, non est apostolice veritatis. Siquidem Apostolus ita scripsit, ut supra transtulimus: ‘Sollicitus est que sunt mundi, quomodo placeat uxori, et divisus est.” Et hac sententia definita transgre- ditur ad virgines et continentes et ait: *Mulier inuupta et virgo cogitat quae sunt Domini ut sit sancta corpore et spiritu.’ Non omnis innupta, et virgo est. Que autem virgo utique et innupta est. Quam- quam ob elegantiam dictionis potuerit id ipsum altero verbo repetere, ‘ mulier in- nupta et virgo :’. vel certe definire voluisse quid esset innupta, id est virgo: ne mere- trices putemus innuptas, nulli certo matri- monio copulatas” (Jer. contra Jovin. i. 13, vol. ii. p. 260). The sing. verb seems to be used, as standing first in this sen- tence, and because ἡ γυνὴ kK. 7 Tap. em- braces the female sex as one idea: so 6. g. Plato, Lys. p. 207, φιλεῖ σε ὃ πατὴρ καὶ ἣ μήτηρ : Herod. v. 21, εἵπετο γὰρ δή σφι κ. ὀχήματα κ. θεράποντες καὶ ἣ πᾶσα πολλὴ παρασκευή : α. ἃ. ‘There loves thee father and mother,’—‘ there followed them,’ &c. See more examples in Kiihner, ii. p. 58 (§ 433, exception 1) :—Reiche thinks that one and the same woman is intended at different periods: but 4 δὲ γαμήσασα is against this: it would be yaunoaca δέ (Meyer). The judgment of marriage here prononnced by the Apostle must be taken, as the rest of the chapter, with ifs accompanying conditions. He is speaking of a pressing and quickly shortening period which he regards as yet remaining before that day and hour of which neither he, nor any man,knew. He wishes his Corinthians, during that short time, to be as far as pos- sible totally undistracted. He mentions as an objection to marriage, that which is an undoubted fact of human experience : —which is necessarily bound up with that relation: and wi/hout which the duties of the relation could not be fulfilled. Since he wrote, the unfolding of God’s providence ABDFK LPRab cdefg hklim ἢ τῶν 47 etl. 990-.-96. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. 533 Η \ fa! , a “ a. h μεριμνᾷ ‘Ta τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς " ἀρέσῃ TO ἀνδρί. 538 τοῦτο P= ch. τ. δ, SN \ \ ‘ e tal A Tate - δὲ Ῥπρὸς TO ὑμῶν αὐτῶν “ σύμφορον λέγω, οὐχ Wa ας , an / ) \ \ 5 \ ly +. ᾿ βρόχον ὑμῖν " ἐπιβάλω, ἀλλὰ P πρὸς τὸ ᾿εὔσχημον καὶ Kec iis ᾿ - ; 7 Symm. " εὐπάρεδρον τῷ κυρίῳ " ἀπερισπάστως. 6 εἰ δέ Teg there only, 3 st 52]. XXi. > a > \ \ “ a ἡ ἀσχημονεῖν " ἐπὶ τὴν ἡ παρθένον αὐτοῦ * νομίζει, ἐὰν ἢ 25 only. ς , \ , ς , δ s and constr,,. ἃ ὑπέρακμος, καὶ οὕτως ὃ ὀφείλει γίνεσθαι, ὃ θέλει ποιείτω: Mark xi.7. Prov. xx. 26: t Acts xiii. 50 reff. u here only +. (παρεδρεύειν, ch. ix. 13.) v here only +. Polyb. ii, Qual, (- -στος͵ Wisd. xvi. 11. περισπᾶσθαι, Luke x. 40. Sir. xli. 2.) w ch. xiii. 5 only. Deut. xxv.3, Ezek. xvi. 8. see ch. xii. 23. -μοσύνη, Rom. i. 27.) x Mark xv. 24 || J. James v. 14. y = Eur. [ph, in Aul. 114. , ἐκεῖσ᾽ ἀπάξει σὴν ἐμήν τε παρθένον; Soph. Cad. Tyr. 1462 »ταῖν ἀθλιαῖν οἰκτραῖν τε παρθένοιν ἐ ἐμαῖν. 2 and constr., Acts τι 20 st a here only t. see Sir. xiii. 9. b = ch. vy. 10. ix. 10. Heb. Me 17: ΧῊ oe m 17 Clem, Orig, [Euthal-ms. Ps-|Ath,. om. ta του κοσμου B [ Tert,(appy) 1]. 35. rec συμφερον, with D3FK LPN m(sic, Treg): [47(sic)] rel Meth, Eus, Chr, [ Bas, Euthal-ms Damasce, ] Thdrt,: txt ABD1X8! 17 Hesych. rec eum posed pox, with K rel Chr, ic: mposedpov Lz: evmposexrov [eumposdexrov Tischdf, ed 8] 5. 6: txt ABDFPR πὶ, 17 Clem, Eus, Bas[s2pe Chr-ms,, ἀπαρεδρον o ].. 36. acxnmover (for ασχημονειν) ΕἾ -gr}. εαυτου. P [6]. ins bef ε. τ. π. av. D! [latt (Syr), basm arm]. for ουτως, τοντο. om νομιζει F[-gr]: γενεσθα, F a Meth,. has taught us more of the interval before the coming of the Lord than it was given even to an inspired Apostle to see. And as it would be perfectly reasonable and proper to urge on an apparently dying man the duty of abstaining from contracting new worldly obligations,—but both unreason- able and improper, should the same person recover his health, to insist on this absti- nence any longer: so now, when God has manifested His will that nations should rise up and live and decay, and long cen- turies elapse before the day of the coming of Christ, it would be manifestly unreason- able to urge,—except in so far as every man’s καιρός is cuveoTaduevos, and similar arguments are applicable,—the considera- tions here enforced. Meanwhile they stand here on the sacred page as_a. lesson to us how to regard, though in circumstances somewhat changed, our worldly relations ; and to teach us, as the coming of the Lord may be as near now, as the Apostle then believed it to be, to aet at least in the spirit of his advice, and be, as fur as God’s manifest will that we should enter into the relations and affairs of life allows, ἀμέριμνοι. The duty of ver. 35 fin. is in- cumbent on all Christians, at all periods. 95.) Caution against mistaking what has been said for an imperative order, whereas it was only ὦ suggestion for their best interest. τοῦτο! vv. 32—34. πρὸς TO Up. αὖτ. σύμ.) For your own (emph.) profit, —i.e. not for my own pur- ‘poses—not to exercise my apostolic au- thority: not that I may cast a snare (lit. ‘a noose;? the metaphor is from throwing the noose in hunting, or in war; so Herod. vii. 85, oF δὲ μάχη τούτεων τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἥδε. ἐπεὼν συμμίσγωσι τοῖς πολεμίοις, βάλλουσι τὰς σειρὰς ἐπ᾽ ἄκρῳ βρόχους ἔχουσας, ὕτευ δ᾽ ἂν τύχῃ ἤντε ἵππου ἤντε ἀνθρώπου, ἐπ᾽ ἑωῦὐτὸν ἕλκει" οἱ δὲ ἐν ἕρκεσι ἐμπαλασσόμενοι διαφθείρονται. See otherexamples in Wetst.) over you (i.e. entangle and encumber you with difficult precepts), but with a view to seemliness (cf. Rom. xiii. 18) and waiting upon the Lord without. distraction, De W. re- marks, that πρὸς τὸ παρεδρεύειν τῷ κ. ἄπερ. would be the easier construction.. Stanley draws out the parallel to the story in ref. Luke. 36—38.] For seemliness’ sake: and consequently, if there be danger, by a father withholding his consent to his daughter’s marriage, of unseemly treat- ment of her, let an exception be made in that case: but otherwise, if there be no such danger, it is better not to give her in marriage. But (introduces an inconsis- tency with εὔσχημον) if any one (any father) thinks that he is behaving un- seemly towards his virgin daughter (viz. in setting before her a temptation to sin with her lover, or at least, bringing on her the imputation of it, by withholding his conseut to her marriage. Or the reference may be to the supposed disgrace of having an unmarried daughter in his house), if she be of full age (for defore that the imputation and the danger consequent on preventing the marriage w ould not be such as to bring in the ἀσχημοσύνη. The ἀκμή of woman is defined by Plato, Rep. v. p- 460, to be twenty years, that of man thirty. See Stanley’s note [and ref. Sir. }), and thus it must be (i.e. and there is no help for it,—they are bent on it beyond the power of dissuasion : —depends not on ἐάν, as the indic. shews, but on εἰ. οὕτως. viz. that they must marry. Theopby|, takes 534 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. VII. 57—40. e 7 A ‘ “ ’ - cseever.28 οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, “ γαμείτωσαν. 51 ὃς δὲ ἕστηκεν ἐν τῇ Won. 58. δί > n ad ὃ a \ e a. > ΄, ν fg ἐξουσίαν char 58 καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ “ ἑδραῖος, μὴ “ ἔχων © ἀνάγκην, onlyt. Ps. . ‘ fal -“ ; , vi.sSymm. δὲ f€yet 8 περὶ Tov ἰδίου " θελήματος, καὶ τοῦτο ' κέκρικεν e = Luke xiv. 2 fol ’ , ΄- e a / sp isis ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καρδίᾳ * τηρεῖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ " παρθένον, ' καλῶς ii. 27. Jud ΄ e A ΄ κ , 3. Jos. Ant. ποιήσει. 38 ὥςτε καὶ ὁ " [ἐκ] γαμίζων [τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον] xvi. 9. 3. f Matt. vii. fal a e Ν ͵ a / lKaN@s ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ ™ [ἐκ] γαμίζων " κρεῖσσον ποιήσει. 29. ix. 6 Luke xii. 5. xix. 17. Actsix.14. Rom. ἰχ. 21. 2 Thess. iii. 9. 1 Macc. x. 35. g here only. ἢ of man, Luke xxiii. 25. Johni. 13. ch. xvi. 12. Eph. ii.3. 2 Pet. i.21. 3 Kings v. 8. i = Acts xv. 19 reff. x = 1 Thess. v. 23. see John xii. 7. 1 Pet. i. 4. 1 = Acts x. 33, Phil. iv. m There bis.] Matt. (xxii. 30 |j L. rec.) xxiv. n ver. 9 reff. 14. James ii. 8,19. 2 Pet. i.19. 3 Kings viii. 1s. 38 only τ. (γαμίζ., Mark xii. 25. Luke xvii. 27 +.) for γαμειτωσαν, γαμειτω D'F [Syr arm] Epiph, Aug, D-lat [Ambrst ]. 37. rec εδραιος bef ev tn καρδια, with KLN? rel [Syr] Thdrt, ΤῊ] : om edpa:os F D-lat arm: txt AB D-gr PX? a ἃ m 17 vulg syr coptt Bas, Thdrt, [Ambr, Ambrst]. (The transposn seems to have been made for perspicuity, to bring εστηκεν and εδραιο5 together.) rec om αὐτου, with KL rel syr Thdrt, Damase Thl Gc: ins ABDFPR d m 17 [latt Syr coptt 2th arm] Bas, Thdrt, [Euthal-ms Ambr.zpe Ambrst ]. om de A [coptt]. rec (for δια kapdia) καρδια αὐτου, with DFE KL rel [ Bas, | Thdrt, Damasc: ἰδια kapdia αὐτου m: καρδια (alone) 672: txt ΑΒΡΝ a. rec ins tov bef tnpew, with DFKL rel [Bas,] Damase He: om ABPN c ἃ 17 [ Euthal-ms]. rec (for ποιήσει) moet, with DFKL[P] rel syrr eth Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] Ec: txt ABN 6. 17. 672 coptt [ Bas, ]. 38. om wste to ποίει (homeotel) Fb! ἃ. rec εκγαμιζων (twice), with K2LP &#(2nd) rel (Chr, Thdrt,] Thl (ἔς : [eyyau. K! Thdrt, Damase :] γαμιζων ABD F(once) δὲ} 17 Clem, Meth, Bas, [Euthal-ms]. rec om τὴν eav. παρθ., with KL rel (Chr, | Thdrt Damase Augaliq: ins A[P]& m 17 Meth, Bas,: τὴν παρθ. eav. BD vulg Syr syr-w-ob coptt {wth arm spec] Clem, Aug, [Ambrst Pel]. for rove, ποιησει Β m 6. 67? [Bas, |: txt ADKLPRN 17 rel [vulg Clem, Meth, Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt,]. rec (for και 6) ὁ δε (corrn for contrast), with KLPX3 rel syr eth [Chr,| Thdrt ΤῊ] Gc: txt ABDFN! m 17 latt Syr coptt arm Clem Meth Bas, [Euthal-ms Ambrst Augszpe ]. : st nubat vulg(including F-lat) rec (for ποιησει) ποιει, with DFKLP rel latt [Clem, Meth, Chr, Damasc] Thdrt,: txt ABN m 6. 17. 67? [copt Bas, Euthal-ms]. the words for the beginning of the conse- quent sentence = οὕτως καὶ γενέσθω. But, as Meyer remarks, the words would thus be altogether superfluous, and after ὀφείλει, οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει would be inapplicable), what he will (as his determination on this voulCew), let him do (τὸ δοκοῦν πραττέτω, Theodoret), he sinneth not (ἁμαρτίας yap 6 γάμος ἐλεύθερος, Theodoret); let them (his daughter and her lover) marry. Some (Syr., Grot., al.) take ἀσχημονεῖν passively,—‘ thinks that he is (likely to be) brought into disgrace as regards his daughter,’ viz. by her seduction, or by her being despised as unmarried. But this would require (1) the future ἀσχημονήσειν. —(2) ἐπί with a dative, the acc. shewing that the verb is one of action: Meyer com- pares ἀσχημονεῖν εἴς τινα, Dion. Hal. ii. 26. And (3) the active sense of the verb is found in this Epistle (ref.), the only other place where it occurs in the N. T. 37.] But he who stands firm in his heart (= purpose,—having no such misgiving that he is behaving unseemly), not involved in any necessity (no ὀφείλει γενέσθαι as in the other case; no deter- mination to marry on the part of his daughter, nor attachment formed), but has (change of construction :—the clause is opposed to ἔχων ἀνάγκ.) liberty of action respecting his personal wish (to keep his daughter unmarried), and has determined this in his own (expressed, as it is a matter of private deternnination only) heart (τοῦ- το, not stated what, but understood by the reader to mean, the keeping his daughter unmarried :—but this would not be in apposition with nor explained by τοῦ Tnp. τ. €avT. παρθ., see below), to keep (in her present state) his own virgin daughter (the rec., τοῦ tnp., would express the purpose of the determination expressed in κέκρικεν : not (as commonly given) the explanation of τοῦτο, which would require τὸ τηρεῖν or τηρεῖν. It shews that the motive of the xexpixey is the feeling of a father, desirous of retaining in her present state his own virgin daughter. So Meyer, and I think rightly: see note on Acts xxvii. 1. De Wette, on the other hand, regards the words τοῦ rnp. .. . , as merely a periphrasis for not giving her in mar- riage. Our present text merely explains the τοῦτο), shall do well. 38.] The latter καί has been altered to δέ because a contrast seemed to be required between καλῶς and κρεῖσσον. One account might ABDFK LPS ab edefg bkim nol7. 47 Vii 1. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 535 39 Turn ° δέδεται Peg’ Pdcov P χρόνον ζῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς" ο΄. Rom. vi ἐὰν δὲ 4 κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ, " ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει yapn- ? Rom. vii} 05 , ae , 401 , ὃ es 9\ q— Matt. xxvii. val, μονον εν κυρίῳ. μακαριωτερᾶ € ἐστιν, EAV δ2. Acts vii. “obras μείνῃ. κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν Vyvapmy " δοκῶ δὲ κἀγὼ 2 OUTWS μεινῇ. KATA τὴν εμὴν γνωμήν ΘΚ ε Καγω το 6, &e. na aA ” 1 Thess. iv. * πνεῦμα θεοῦ * ἔχειν. 18; 1s λον» \ \ a ᾽ ΄ὔ y “ xiv. 8. VIIT. 1 Περὶ δὲ τῶν 5 εἰδωλοθύτων, 5 οἴδαμεν ὅ ὅτι τυ. int here only. s = Rom. xvi. 2, 8, 11 al. t compar., here only +. see Acts xx. 35. u ver. 26. ; v =ch, i. 10 reff. w ch. iii. 18 reff. x Rom. viii. 9. Jude 19. y vv. 4,7, 10. ch. ὦ 19. Acts xv. 29. xxi. 25. Rev. ii. 14, 20 only +. a= chi vi..2.al. fr. 39. [at beg ins 7 Coisl-oct-marg coptt Clem. | rec aft δεδεται ins vouw (from Rom vii. 2), with D?*5[-gr] FLPR? rel vulg-ed(with fuld F-lat) Syr syr [Epiph-ms,] Chreepe Thdrt, Damase, Ambrst,: om AB D!{and lat] δὲ} Coisl-oct-marg 17 am(with demid tol harl?) coptt eth arm Clem, Orig,[-c, Tert, Cypr,; Ambr, Augaiic]. om Ist 6 F (not G). ins καὶ bef κοιμηθη D3 ΕἸ -ργίκεκοιμ.)} La befhlosyr Thdrt, Bc: om ABD!KPN rel Clem, Orig.[-c, Chr, ]. for κοιμηθη, arofavn A 73 syr-mg basm Clem Orig{[-c, Epiph,] Bas, Tert, [Jer]. rec aft 2nd o aynp ins αὐτης, with DFL a m 17. 47 vss (syr-w-ast) Orig, Damasce ΤῊ] lat-ff: om ABKPR Orig,[-c, Chr,] Bas Thdrt, Ee Vig,. for γαμηθηναι, γαμηθη F latt [Tert, Cypr,]: yaunoa L'(appy). 40. for 2nd δε, yap B πὶ 4. 17. 672. 71-3. 116 tol syr(Se in marg) basm eth [Cyr, (txt-p,)] Orig[-int,(txt,-c,)] Ambrjaiicy) Ambrst Vig Sedul (not Tert; Ang Jer). exw F Tert, Ambrst Aug. be (as M. and De W.) that Paul had in- preferred ; also as making a better limita- tended to write καλῶς ποι. twice, but tion of @ θέλει. 40. paxapiwrépa | currente calamo, intensified the expres- [not merely happier, in our merely social sion to κρεῖσσον ποιήσει. Perhaps a better secular sense, but including this] happier, one will be found by referring the καὶ--- partly by freedom from the attendant kai to that which καλῶς and κρεῖσσον trials of the ἐνεστῶσα avayxn,—but prin- have in common: ‘both he who gives in cipally for the reason mentioned verse 34. marriage does well, and he who gives not “Τὸ higher blessedness in heaven, which in marriage shall do well, even in a higher became attached to celibacy afterwards in degree. I need hardly remind the tiro _ the views of its defenders (Ambrose, Corn.- that ‘both—and’ here does not, as Bloomf. a-Lap., al.), there is no allusion here.” objects, represent te xai,—each subject Meyer. δοκῶ δὲ κἀγώ] This is being accompanied by its own predicate. modestly said, implying more than is Observe the ποιήσει---ποιεῖ---ποιήσει ; the expressed by it,—not as if there were any pres., of the mere act itself, the fut., of its uncertainty in his mind. It gives us the enduring results. 39, 40.] Concern. true meaning of the saying that he is ing second marriages of women. giving his opinion, as ver. 25: viz. not that 39. δέδεται} viz. τῷ ἀνδρί, or perhaps _ he is speaking without inspiration, but that absolutely, is bound, in her marriage state. in the consciousness of inspiration he is γαμηθῆναι] γαμηθῆναι and γαμῆσαι giving that counsel which should determine are later forms, reprobated by the gram- the question. The rationalizing Grotius niarians : γαμεθῆναι and γαμέσαι being the explains πνεῦμα θεοῦ, ‘non revelationem, corresponding ones in good Greek. See sed sincerum affectum Deo et pilis ser- Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 742. Meyer viendi,’ referring to ch. iv. 21, where (1) cites Sclol. on Eur. Med. 593, γαμεῖ μὲν the meaning is not this (see note) ; and γὰρ ὃ ἀνήρ, γαμεῖται δὲ ἡ γυνή. But (2) the expression is not πνεῦμα θεοῦ. not invariably, see ver. 28. μόνον κἀγώ] ‘as well as other teachers.’ ἐν κυρίῳ] only in the Lord, i.e. within Whether said with a general or particular the limits of Christian connexion—in the reference, we cannot tell, from not being element in which all Christians live and sufficiently acquainted with the circum- walk ;—‘ let her marry a Christian” So __ stances. Tertull., Cypr., Ambrose, Jerome, Grot., III. 1—XI.1.] ON THE PARTAKING Est., Bengel, Rosenm., Olsh., Meyer, De } OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND AS- W. But Chrys. explains it μετὰ σωφρο- SISTING AT FEASTS HELD IN HONOUR OF σύνης, μετὰ KoomidTnTos:—and so (but in IDOLS. some cases including in this the marrying Cuap. VIII. 1—18.] Though (vv. 1—6) of a Christian) Theodoret (τουτέστιν duo- for those who are strong in the faith, an πίστῳ, εὐσεβεῖ, σωφρόνως, evvduws), Theo- idol having no existence, the question has phyl., Calv., Beza, Calov., al. This how- 0 importance, this is not so with all (ver. ever seems flat, and the other much to be 7); and the infirmities of the weak must 11, Hes. iv. 6. see 1 Tim. vi. 20. b ch. iv. 6 reff. c = Acts ix. 31 reff. © οἰκοδομεῖ. Cuap. VIII. 2. rec aft εἰ ins δε, with DFKL Thdrt Thi ec Jer: [aft τις m:] om ABPN [al] int, Nys, Melet, [Euthal-ms] Damase Tert, Cypr, Ambrst. with KL rel Chr, Thdrt Thl Ge, seere vulg [ F-lat m 17 coptt Clem, Orig[-c,] Nys, [Chr Euthal-ms | at has both cognoscere and scire.) DFKL rel Chr, Thdrt, Damasc Thl Ge: om m: txt ABPN 17 peas coptt arm Clem, Orig[ -¢, ]- rec (for εγνωκεναι) εἰδεναι, Tert, Cypr, Ambrst ]: txt ABDFPS® Thdrt, Damase, cognovisse \-lat. (G-1 ουϑεπω, with Orig[-c,] Melet, [Nys, KL rel syrr Chr, Thdrt, Orig{-c,-int, ] Nys Melet D3KL rel Chr, Thdrt, ΤῊ] ic: Chr, Kuthal-ms ]. Damase Thl Ec: ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. Thdrt, (Chr, Euthal-ms Tert, Cypr, |. txt ABD!IFPXN a m , A "4 ΄ “; “ ~ i \ ’ i πάντες δ γνῶσιν ἔχομεν" ἡ "γνῶσις " φυσιοῖ, ἢ δὲ ἀγάπη ’ - , A ΝΜ 2 εἴ τις ἡ δοκεῖ ἐγνωκέναι τί, οὕπω Ἔγνω rel να] οἴου} syr-w-ast (ath) Chr, al] 17 am(with fuld harl'(appy) tol) rec rec aft ου(δε)πω ins οὐδεν, with D[-gr?-3 om ABD!FPR 17 latt coptt [ath arm] Clem rec εγνωκεν, with Clem Orig[-c] Nys Melet [Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damase.—for oumw eyvw καθως der yywvat, ovdev ede. (= ἤδει) καθως ede: 17. in such a matter be regarded in our con- duet (vv. 8—13). 1. δέ, transitional, as in ch. vii. 1, al. fr. As regards the construction, we may observe, that περὶ δ. τῶν €i5.,is again taken up ver. 4, περὶ τῆς βρώσ. οὖν τῶν εἰδ., after ἃ parenthesis. We may also observe that in the latter case οἴδαμεν ὅτι is restated, bearing there- fore, it is reasonable to suppose, the same meaning as before, viz. we know, that. This to my mind is decisive against begin- ning the parenthesis with ὅτι, and render- ing ὅτι ‘for, as Luther, Bengel, Valckn., al.:—‘we know (for we all have know- ledge), fe. Are we then to begin it with πάντες, leaving wep)... οἴδαμεν ὅτι broken off, corresponding to the words resumed in ver. 4? We should thus leave within the parenthesis a very broken and harsh sen- tence: πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν (what γνῶ- σις ὃ if yy. about the εἰδωλοθ., it should be joined with the preceding; if yv. in general, it should be τὴν γνῶσιν, see ch. xiii. 2, which would be absurd; if some yv. on some subjects, as σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, James il. 18, it would here be irrelevant), ἢ γν. φυσιοῖ, ἡ δὲ ay. κιτιλ. The first logical break in the sense is where the concrete γνῶσις, that περὶ τῶν εἰδ., is forsaken, and the abstract ἣ γνῶσις treated of. Here therefore, with Chrys., &c., Beza, Grot., Calv., Est., al., De Wette, and Meyer, I begin the parenthesis,—. . .we are aware that we all (see below) have knowledge ; knowledge, &c.; not however placing tt in brackets, for it is already provided for _ in the construction by the resumption of περὶ . . οὖν below; and is nota grammati- cal but only a logical parenthesis. The εἰδωλόθυτα were those portions of the ani- mals offered in sacrifice which were not laid on the altar, and which belonged partly to the priests, partly to those who had offered them. These remnants were sometimes eaten at feasts holden in the temples (see ver. 10), or in private houses (ch. x. 27, f.), sometimes sold in the markets, by the priests, or by the poor, or by the niggardly. Theophrastus, Charact. xvili., describes it as characteristic of the ἀνελεύθερος,---ἐκδι- Subs αὑτοῦ θυγατέρα, τοῦ μὲν ἱερείου, πλὴν τῶν ἱερῶν, τὰ κρέα ἀποδίδοσθαι. They were sometimes also reserved for future use: Theophr. mentions it as belonging to the ἀναίσχυντος,---θύσας τοῖς θεοῖς αὐτὸς μὲν δειπνεῖν παρ᾽ ἑτέρῳ, τὰ δὲ κρέα ἀποτιθέναι ἁλσὶ πάσας. Christians were thus in con- tinual danger of meeting with such rem- nants. Partaking of them was an abomi- nation among the Jews: see Num. xxv. 2; Ps. evi. 28; Rev. ii. 14; Tobit i. 1O— 12; and was forbidden by the Apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem, Acts xv. 29; xxi. 25. hat Paul in the whole of this passage makes no allusion to that decree, but deals with the question on its own merits, probably is to be traced to his wish to establish his position as an independent Apostle, endowed with God’s Holy Spirit sufficiently himself to regulate such mat- ters. But it also shews, how little such decisions were at that time regarded as lastingly binding on the whole church : and how fully competent it was, even during the lifetime of the Apostles, to Christians to open and question, on its own merits, a matter which they had, for a special purpose, once already decided. There should be a comma at εἰδωλοθύτων, as the resumed sentence (ver. 4) shews. πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν) Who are πάντες Meyer says, Paul himself and the enlightened among the Corinthians: Estius, al., these latter alone; and some think it said ironically, some concessively, of them: Grot., “pars maxima nostrum, ut Rom. iii.12.” But it is manifest from vv. 4—6, which is said in the widest possi- ble rererence to the faith of all Christians, that all Christians must be intended here also: and so Chrys., Theophyl., Gcum., Caloy., al., and De Wette. But then, ver. Wit. no li, 47 ABDFK LPR a oF cdete hk 1] oe ee δια OO κμυνονοννωνουνω κσν........΄ ὡς “πἰὐκῶνλιν.....ὄϑ«.. νων μμομονκικοδο.".,»». νὰ... δ ge er eee 2—B5. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 937 \ a) a ΒΞ » , " “~ \ _ , - καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι: ὃ εἰ δέ τις ἀ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν ἃ θεόν, οὗτος 4 Matt. xxii 37 ||,and Luke x. 27, from , ig ,’ b] a rn > “ “ἔγνωσται ὑπ αὐτοῦ. 3. περὶ τῆς ἱ βρώσεως ody τῶν τ 27, ποι opera - Vl. ὁ. 2 Vy ” .“ > ᾿] ΄ ase ΦἈ Β εἰδωλοθύτων, ὅ οἴδαμεν 8 ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν KOO LW, 1 Sohn iv. 20; 21. v. 2. N pcer > \ aN > \ rte καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς. θεὸς. " εἰ μὴ εἷς" .5 καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν «- Gal. iv.9. (from Num. xvi. 5). Matt. vii. 23, f Rom. xiv. 17 reff. g ver. Lan ee att, Xie aoe Gale is 19 3. om um αὐτου ἕξ] 17 Clem. 4. for π. της Bp. ovy, π. δε της Bp. D?[Treg]-3(and lat: D! has both δὲ and ovr(Treg, expr [in error, according to Tischdf ed 8, who says that D! has π. δετ. yywoews, D2 π. τ. Bp. ovv})) 6 1. 17. 108-15 vulg (autem vulg al: enim spec: ergo F-lat) Aug,.—for Bpwoews, γνωσεως DIP 121. aft ovdey ins ἐστιν F vulg Syr syr-w-[ob copt spec] Iren[-int, | Orig-int, [Ambrst Aug, ]. rec aft θεὸς ins erepos, with K LN? rel syrr Chr, Thdrt Damasc ΤῊ] (ic: om ABDFPR? 17, 47 latt copt [basm] zth arm Bas, Cyr, [Euthal-ms] Iren-int, [Ambrst Aug, ]. 7,he says, οὐκ ἐν τᾶσιν 7 γνῶσις [obviously knowledge but the Supreme been treated “pointing at the weak Christian brother]: of, the natural one, viz. οὗτος ἔγνω αὐτόν. and how are the two to be reconciled? By We cannot be said to know God, in any taking, I believe, the common-sense view full sense (as here) of the word to know. of two such statements, which would be, But those who become acquainted with in ordinary preaching or writing, that God by love, are known by Him: are the the first was said of what is professed and _ especialobjects of the divine Knowledge,— confessed,—the second of what is actually their being is pervaded by the Spirit of and practically apprehended by each man. God, and the wisdom of God is shed abroad Thus we may say of our people, in the inthem. So in ref. 2 Tim., ἔγνω κύριος former sense, ‘ all are Christians ; all be- τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ. See also Ps. i.6. “Cog. Reve in Christ? but in the latter, ‘all are nitionem passivam sequitur cognitio activa not Christians ; all do not believe.’ ec. xili, 12, Egregia metalepsis : cognitus γνώσιν, scil. περὶ αὐτῶν. From 7 yv.to est, adeoque cognovit.” Bengel. γινώσκω end of ver. 3 (see above) is a logical paren- does not seem, any more than y? in Ps. i. thesis. ἡ γνώσις, knowledge, abstract, 6, xxxvii. 18, for which the LXX have —scil. when alone, or improperly predomi- γινώσκω, to signify to approve, any further nant: it is the attribute of 7 γνῶσις, than personal knowledge of an intimaty ‘barely’ [to puff up]. ἡ ἀγάπη] viz. ᾿ kind necessarily involves approval. ‘towards the brethren, see Rom. xiv. 15, | 4 The subject is resumed, and furthey and ch. x. 23. οἰκοδ.] helps to build Cified by the insertion of τῆς βρώσεως. up (God’s spiritual temple), ch. 111. 9. οὖν resumes-a_broken t hador ds 2, 8.1 The general deductions, (1) froma course: so Plato, Apol. p. 29, ὥςτε οὐδ᾽ εἴ profession of knowledge, and (2)from the μὲ ἀφίετε. . . εἴ μοι πρὸς ταῦτα εἴποιτε, presence of love, in a man:—expressed &c.... εἰ οὖν με, ὅπερ εἶπον, ἐπὶ τούτοις sententiously and without connecting par- ἀφίοιτε... See Hartung, Partikellehre, ticles, more, as Meyer observes, after the ii. 22. We know that there is no idol manner of St. John in his Epistles. On in the world, ie. that_the etseXa@~of thie” the text, see var. readd. | The case sup- “heathen (meaning not strictly the tmages, posed is the only one which can occur but the persons represented by them) where love is absent and conceit present: have no existence in the world. That a_man can then only think he knows,—no _ they who worship idols, worship devils, the real. lyatladie Reus aeceaerOte without Apostle himself asserts ch. x. 20; but that humility and love. } Such a man knows is no contradiction to the present sentence, not yet, as he ought to know: has had_ which asserts that the deities imagined by no real practice in the art of knowing. them, Jupiter, Apollo, &c., have absolutely Sut if-aman loves God (which is 70 existence. Of that subtle Power which, the highest and noblest kind of love, the under the guise of these, deluded the na- source of brotherly love, 1 John v. 2), tions, he here says nothing. The rendering this’man. (and not the wise in his own of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl. (Ecum., conceit) is known.by.Him.. The expla-. Vulg., E. V., Luther, Beza, Grot., Est., al. nation of this latter somewhat difficult (‘an idol is nothing in the world,’ ch. x. expression is to be found in ref. Gal., νῦν 19; Jer. x. 3. Sanhedr. 63. 2 (Wetst.), “noverant utique Israelite idolum nihil δὲ γνόντες “τόν, μαχχὸν δὲ γνωσθέντες “tro θεοῦ. 50 ἘΠΕῚ here ΝΟ ma fairly 6556), is certainly wrong here, on account “assume that he chooses the expression, of the parallel οὐδεὶς θ i μὴ εἷς whic ἔγνωσται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ in preferencetothat. follows. And that there is no which would have been, had any object of One: the insertion of ἕτερος has probably e 538 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. VIII. i , \ »” ᾽ > “~ » 9 Ἁ ΄“ “ i-2Thess. ii, ᾿ λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ, εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥςπερ 4. Eph. ii. 1]. \ 9 a k=Actsxxr. εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ * κύριοι πολλοί, 8.) adr ™ ἡμῖν εἷς date, θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, "ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς " εἰς αὐτόν m dat. --- ch. i. $ Ps € vie 1) bo ς Α 18 reff. | \ ᾿ ΄ >| a , ° \ / \ n Rom. xi ὅδ. καὶ εἰς κύριος Ἰησοῦς χρίστος, " δι οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ Ν τ τὸν ys a ’ a , Cal ς Lal eB \ ὁ Acts xiii. 15° ἡ μεῖς "Oe αὐτοῦ. 1 ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ° ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ Ῥ γνῶσις" τινὲς p ver. 1. A , ς » ΟΣ ΠΟΥ, - > , gw. gen, obj. δὲ τῇ * 4 συνειδήσει * ἕως ἴ ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου ὡς 8 εἰδωλόθυτον et. τι. . St ERIN acre ml Fick. τὴ 5. awe, cha Oe ehh aca eee, 5. ins ot bef λεγόμενοι FK Iren{-int,] Hil). rec ins τῆς bef yns, with rel [Chr, Damasc] aft Ist θεοι ins καὶ κυριοι Ὁ) Ainbrst. om from εἰσιν to εἰσιν L. Thdrt, @e: txt ABDFKPN f g kl m ἢ 17 Orig, Eus, Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt, Dion-areop. 6. om add’ Bbasm Eus, Iren{-int, ].—nuw δε 17 copt [ Cyr-jer,(txt,) Epiph, Ps-]Ath Cyr,[-p(txt,, adAa,)] Epiph, Orig-int,. om Ist τα D!. ins o bef Geos F. ins o bef xp. P. om θεος X}(ins X-corr?). δι ov B eth. 7. * συνηθείᾳ ABPR! 17 syr-mg copt «th {Euthal-ms] Damase: συνειδήσει DFLN? rel latt syrr [arm] Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] (ἔς Tert [Ambrst] Aug,. rec Tov εἰδωλου bef ews apt: (corrn for perspicuity), with ALP rel syr {basm] Chr, [ Euthal-ms Damasc} Thl Ge: txt BDFX m latt Syr (copt eth] arm Thdrt [Aug, }. been occasioned by the first commandment, οὐκ ἔσονταί σοὶ θεοὶ ἕτεροι πλὴν euov. ὁ 8,61 Further explanation and confirma- tion of ver. 4.. ~~~ §.] For even sup- posing that (εἴπερ makes an hypothesis, so that “in incérto relinquitur, jure an in- juria sumatur,” Herm. ad Viger., p. 834. See also Hartung, Puartikellehre, i. 343, who gives many examples. καὶ yap ei, as Eur. Med. 450, καὶ yap εἰ σύ με στυγεῖς, οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην σοὶ κακῶς φρονεῖν ποτε; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 140 f.) beings named gods (not those who are as(we know that) there are(viz> as beige ‘spoken of, Deut. x. 17, ὁ yap κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, οὗτος θεὸς τῶν θεῶν Kal κύριος τῶν κυρίων, see also Ps, cxxxv. 2,3) gods many, _ and lords many (the ὥςπερ brings in an acknowledged fact, on which the possibility of the hypothesis rests—‘ Even if some of the many gods and_many lords whom we Tie ΤΟ ἘΡΕΙ͂, be actually identical with the heathen idols...’ The Apostle does not concede this, but only puts it). This” éxegesis, which is Meyer’s, is denied by De Wette, who takes εἴπερ as concessive, ‘even though,’ and understands εἰσίν both times as only ‘are,’—in the meaning of the heathen,—imagining it impossible that Paul should have seriously said in an ob- jective sense, ‘ there are gods many. But in the sense in which he uses θεοί (see above) there is no unlikelihood that he should assert this. Chrys. gives the fol- lowing explanation: καὶ yap εἴπερ εἰσὶ λεγό- μενοι θεοί, ὥςπερ οὖν καὶ εἰσίν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἰσίν, ἀλλά, λεγόμενοι, οὐκ ἐν πράγματι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ῥήματι τοῦτο ἔχοντες" εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ, εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ τὸν ἥλιον λέγων κ. τὴν σελήνην kK. τὸν λοιπὸν τῶν ἄστρων χορόν" καὶ γὰρ καὶ ταῦτα προΞξεκύ- νησαν “Ἕλληνες᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς δὲ δαίμονας, καὶ τοὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων θεοποιηθέντας ἅπαντας. Hom. xx. p. 172. And similarly Theo- doret, Theophyl., Gcum., Calv., Beza, Calov., Estius, Schrader, al. See the vari- ous minor differences of interpretation, in Pool’s Synopsis and De Wette: and a beautiful note in Stanley. There is a sentence in Herodotus (ix. 27) singularly resembling this in its structure: ἡμῖν δέ, εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶ ἀποδεδεγμένον, ὥςπερ ἐστὶ πολλά τε Kal εὐἔχοντα,. .. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν Μαραθῶνι ἔργου ἄξιοί ἐσμεν, κιτιλ. Cf. also Hom. II. a. 81 f. ; o. 576 f. Yet (see reff. just given, and ch. iv. 15) 0 us (emphatic : however that matter may be, we hold) there is ONE Gop, the Father (ὁ πατήρ answers to Ἰησοῦς χριστός in the parallel clause be- low, and serves to specify what God—viz. the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ), of Whom (as their Source of being) are all things, and we unto (i.e. for) Him (His purposes—to serve His will); and one Lord Jesus Christ (netice the εἷς θεός opposed to θεοὶ πολλοί, and εἷς κύριος to κύριοι πολλοί), by Whom (as Him by whom the Father made the worlds, John i. 3; Heb. i. 2) are all things, and we (but here secondly, we as his spiritual people, in the new creation) by Him. The inference from the foregoing is that, per se, the eating of meat offered to idols is a thing indifferent, and therefore al- lowed. The limitation of this licence now follows. 1.) But (fondern) not in all is the knowledge (of which we have been speaking: i.e. see above, is not in them in their individual apprehension, though it is by their profession as Christians): but (aber) some through their conscious- ἢ γὙνω- σις K. ABDFL PNabe detgh klmn- 017, 47 6—10. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOTS A. 539 3 , \ es / ee tis \ by u . ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἡ " συνείδησις αὐτῶν "ἀσθενὴς οὖσα " μο- sw. gen. subj., Rom. ii. 15. ΄ : » \ ae Mb A a i . 5 . λύνεται. 8 " βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ “ παραστήσει τῷ θεω" τ Ὁ t = here (366) A 2A / xf ΄ θ ἡ ὟΝ fs οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν, * ὑστερούμεθα, οὔτε ἐὰν φάγωμεν, only. {(-νεῖν, Rom. xiv. 1. aa ΟἿΣ. μ - δὲ 4un 3 Ὁ de ᾳ ὑμῶ i Y περισσεύομεν. 5.5 βλέπετε δὲ ὃ μή ὅπως ἡ ἐξουσ ἰώ ὑμῶν ἀν ind. ᾿ Η ἢ A Ae teed θ , 7 10) 2, , xiv. 4 only. αὑτὴ “ προςκομμα γενηταν τοις ᾿ασύενεσιν. ἡ. ,εαν YAP isa. Inv. dal. = Sir. xx:. 28. Yj A 3 fis τις ἴδῃ σὲ Tov ἔχοντα ὃ γνῶσιν ἐν 1 εἰδωλείῳ “© κατακεί- ¥ Rom. xiv. 15 reff. ΩΝ > fas 3 [οὶ of rie be Ἐν μενον, ovyt ἡ " συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ‘ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος " Tyr" ὙΠ ΡΟ αν {Ὁ x ch. i. 7 reff. y = ch. xiv. 12 8]. (Rom. iii. 7 reff.) z = Acts xiii. 40 reff. a — Rom. xi. 21. b = ch. vii. 37 al. c Rom. ix. 32, 33 reff. d here only+. Esdr.ii.10. 1 Macc. i. 47. x. 83 only. e = Mark ii. 15), L. xiv. 3. Luke vii. 37 only}. (Prov. vi. 9.) for εσθιουσιν, ἐστιν N'(txt X-corr!). 8. vuas &'c Κα 1 m 17 [Damasc]. rec παριστησι (corrn to suit the follg pres tenses), with DLPN% rel vulg Orig, Ath-4-mss Chr, [ Bas, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Jac-nisib, [Tert, Cypr,]: σινιστησιν F [συνιστ. G]: txt ABR! 17 coptt Clem, Orig, Ath, Damasc,. rec aft ουτε ins yap, with DFLP rel latt syrr Clem, Orig, Chr, Thdrt [Bas, Damase] Jac-nisib, Ambrst: om ABN 17 am(with tol) coptt ath arm Orig, [ Bas, Euthal-ms] Cypr, Aug, (Tert,). rec oute cay gary. περισσευομεν bef ovte eav un pay. υστερουμεθα (appy to bring closer the clause φαγωμ. περισ., to Bpwu. ov παριστ., as being logically connected with it), with DFLPN vel [vulg-clem fuld eth | syrr Clem, Orig, Chr, [Bas, Cyr,-p Euthal-ms Damasc] Thdrt Jac-nisib Cypr, Exerk. Ambrst Aug]: eav μὴ φαγωμεν περισσευομεν ουτε εαν φαγωμεν υστερουμεθα A*(but in A “epic. usque ad var. voces rescripte : quid olim non liquet ”) 17![om μη altogether 172]: txt (A'?)B am(with demid flor mar tol) coptt arm Bas,.—epiooevoneba BOrig). 9. μων P. rec ασθενουσιν (appy corrn to suit acbevwy below, which however is gradually introduced,—ac0cveow,—acbevous οντος,---ασθενων), with L rel Chr, Thdrt [Antch,] ΤῊ] @e: txt ABDFPX 17 Clem, [Euthal-ms] Damasc,. 10. edn A 17. exovta &! 17 Orig-int,. (ιδωλ. AFR 17). ness (or, according to the other reading, habituation) to this day, of the (par- ticular) idol (1. 6. through their having an apprehension to this day of the reality of the idol, and so being conscientiously afraid of the meat offered, as belonging to him: not wishing to be connected with him. τῇ συνειδήσει ἕως ἄρτι is not = τῇ ἕως ἄρτι ovv., but ἕως ἄρτι stands sepa- rate, as above: so διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Phil. i. 26) eat it as offered to an idol, and their conscience, in that it is weak, is defiled. By ἕως ἄρτι, it is shewn that these ἀσθενεῖς must have belonged to the Gentile part of the Corinthian church : to those who had once, before their conversion, held these idols to be veritable gods. Had they been Jewish converts, it would not have been συνείδησις τοῦ εἰδώλου which would have troubled them, but_apparent violation of the Mosaic law. 8.1 Reason why we should accommodate ourselves to the prejudices of the weak in this matter : because it is not gue in which any spiritual advantage 15 fo be gained, but one perfectly indifferent : not; with Calv., al., an objection of the strong among the Corinthians: no such assumption must be made, without a plain indication in words that the saying of om σε BF vulg Orig-int, [Ambrst Aug,]: ins ADLPR rel syrr coptt goth arm [(Bas,) Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Antch, Damasc]. ειἰδωλίω (for -λειω) AB D[}(Tischdf)] L[P]& ἃ Καὶ ΠῚ m 17 yvwow bef another is being cited: see Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19; and as Meyer well remarks, if the eaters had said this, they would have ex- pressed it, οὔτε ἐὰν ph φάγωμεν περισσ., οὔτε ἐὰν φάγ.. ὕστερ., as it has actually been corrected (see var. readd.) in some Mss., and adopted by Lachm. in his last edn. The δέ carries on the argument. Bengel remarks (against the ordinary rendering, which takes παρίστημι = συν- ίστημι, ‘commendo,’ which meaning it will not bear) that παραστήσει is a verbum μέσον, after which may follow a good or a bad predicate :—will not affect our (future) standing before God ;—and to this indif- ferent meaning of παραστήσει answers the antithetic alternative which follows. Ἴ9.).δέ- α. ἃ. “1 acknowledge this indif- ere nce—this licence to eat or not to eat; but it is on that very account, because it is a matter indifferent, that yeroust_take heed,” &e. The particular πρόσκομμα in this case would be, ΤΣ tempting them to. act against their conscience :»a~practice above all others dangerous to a Christian, see below, ver. 11. {10 Explanation how the mpéskoppa may arise. tis, scil. (see below) ἀσθενὴς dv. TOV ἔχοντα γνῶσιν seems to imply that the weak brother is aware of this,and looks up 540 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINGIOTS A. VIII. 11—13. ; ? \ ἈΠ oy es ͵ 7 \ s—actsix.n folkodopnOnoetar εἰς TO, τὰ ὅ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίειν )καὶ reff. (iron., h2 7 Shoe ἣν κ᾿ Α, ΑΚ 4 ἐ * here only." @TONAUTAL O ἀσθενῶν "ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, ὁ ἀδελφὸς 15.} constr. a. Ww \ ͵ . « \ ͵ δρῦν, δ’ ὃν χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ; 13,)οὕτως δὲ | ἁμαρτάνοντες ! ε > us g ver. 1 reff. ὃ h Rom. xiv. 15 \ \ uf a τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ™TUTTovTes αὐτῶν THY 5 συνείδησιν ... ΑΝ 13 ὁ διό ; διόπερ εἰ. ren. i Rom. iv. 19 = a \ ΄ ἱ ἀσθενοῦσαν, ‘eis χριστὸν | ἁμαρτάνετε. reff. k Matt. vi. 7. A —_—— \ 7, reonstr.,eh. Ρ βρῶμα 9 σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω * κρέα ς δ κε κεν σε > \ IA “ \ \ , e m= bere only. δ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου ἃ σκανδαλίσω. Prov, xxvi. 5) > ΄ 5 , Stak ge ty, IX. 1 Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος ; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος ; οὐχὶ n ver. 7. och. x. 14 (xiv. 13 v. r-) only. p Rom. xiv. 15 reff. q Matt. xv. 12. xvii. 27. Rom. xiv. 21+. Sir. ix. 5. xxiii. 8. xxxv. (xxxii.) 15 only. r Rom. xiv. 21 only. Gen. ix. 4 al. s Matt. xxi.19. Mark iii. 29. John viii. 35. Deut. xv. 17. ἐσθιειν bef τα εἰδωλοθυτα DF [vulg syrr coptt eth] Orig-int [Ambrst] Aug. 11. for καὶ απολ., aor. yap BX! 17 coptt goth Clem,(elsw cites freely aAAa απ.) fAntch, (Thdrt,)]: amoa. ουν AP: καὶ απ. ovy 46 Damase: txt DFLN% rel vulg syrr [Ὡ arm Euthal-ms] Chr, Iren-int, [Ambrst] Jer. (The sentence has prob been tampered with to get rid of the apparent awkwardness of tie question being carried on through ver 11,—and ovv and yap have been attempts to break it off at εσθιειν.) rec απολειταῖι (to suit the fut above), with D3[-gr] FL rel [vulg syrr eth arm | Chr, (edd and mss vary) Thdrt Thi (ec Iren-int,; [Ambrst] Jer: txt AB D}{and lat] ΡΝ [a basm] copt goth Clem, Bas[(edd and mss vary) Euthal-ms] Antch, Thdrt, Damasc. (απολυται D!, απολλυται D?: 17 illeg.) rec emi (= ‘on account of,’ seems to have been a corrn for the more difficult ev,—see note), with L rel Chr, [Antch,] Thdrt ΤῊ] (ic: txt ABDFPN 17 Bas, Thdrt, [Eutbal-ins Damasc]: im latt Iren-int [Ambrst] Jer: om εν Clem, (Orig)). om on B. rec adcAgos, omg art, bef ev τη on γνωσει (attempt to simplify, at the expense of the emphatic character of the sentence), with LPN? rel fuld syr(aé. 0 ao.) farm] Chr, Thdrt, [Antch, Damasc]: om adeAgos vulg-ms Syr: txt AB D[om o D?3] FN! m(omg 6) 17 latt copt [basm] goth zth Bas, - Iren-int, Ambrst Jer (Clem, has 0 a5. ασθ. : elsw, he cites απ. yap 0 ασθ. τὴ σὴ Ὑν.). 12. om Tous F. om και F(including F-lat G-lat) D-lat | basm]. 13. ins to bef Bpwua F. om pov (twice) F(including F-lat G-lat) Cypr, ; [D-lat'] goth Clem, also om 1st μου; D}(and lat) Cypr, [Ambrst Aug; Sing-cler] om 2nd. κρεας NI. Cuap. IX. 1. rec transp ελευθερος and αποστολος (possibly to bring the weightiest question into prominence,—or, as Mey, οὐκ εἰμ. απ. having been omd in mistake (as 71. 178), was re-insd first as the weightier and first treated, cf vv 2, 3), with DFKL rel fuld syr basm goth Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABP m 17 vulg [am demid harl tol] Syr copt eth arm Orig, Tert,; Ambr, Aug, Pel Cassiod Bede. ἂν τὸν νοσοῦντα τύπτοντος ; Chrys. p. 176 to thee as such. ἐν εἰδωλείῳ Kat. ] See 3. | Fervid expression of his own on εἰδωλοθ., ver. 1. εἰδωλεῖον, as Πυσει- δεῖον, ᾿Απολλωνεῖον, Ἰσεῖον, Xe. “οἰκοδομηθήσεται is not a vox media, as Le Clere, Elsner, Wolf, al., nor is it impelletur, as Castal., Bengel, Kypke, al., nor confirmabitur, as Syr., Grot., Billroth, al.’ (Mey.), but as Meyer and De Wette, edificabitur, not without a certain irony, seeing it is accompanied by ἀσθενοῦς bvros,—for thus the building up would be without solid foundation— a ruinosa edificatio, as Calv. 11.) .... and (thus) the weak perishes (here- after: see the parallel, ref. Rom. and note) in (as the element in which,—he . entering into it as his own, which it is not) thy knowledge,—the brother, in whose behalf Christ died? See again Rom. as above. 12. οὕτως, viz. as in vv. 10, 11. καί fixes and explains what is meant by auapr. εἰς τ. ad. τύπτοντες | smit- ing: τί yap ἀπηνέστερον ἀνθρώπου γένοιτ᾽ resolution consequent on these considera- tions, by way of an example to them. βρώμα, tood, i. 6. any article of food, as ver. 8; purposely indefinite here; ‘if such a matter as food. ...,’ but presently particularized. ov pH φάγω, strong future, I surely will not eat; ‘there is no chance that I eat.’ κρέα] ‘Quo certius vitarem carnem idolo immolatam, toto genere carnium abstinerem.’ Bengel. cKavdadiow| be the means of offend- ing; “ commutatur persona: modo dixit sé cibus offendit.” Bengel. ‘ Non autem hoe dicit quod hoe aliquo easu opus sit, sed ut ostendat multo graviora quam de quibus hie agitur sustinenda pro proximorum salute.’ Grot. IX. 1—27.] He di- gressively illustrates the spirit of self- denial which he professed in the resolution of ch. vii. 13,—by contrasting his rights as un Apostle with his actual conduct va IX. 1—4. IPOs KOPINOIOTS A. 541 ? A / o x Inootv τὸν "κύριον ἡμῶν "ἑώρακα; οὐ TO ἔργον MOU t John xx 18, = “ ᾽ 3 / 9 ? υμεις ἐστε ἐν KUPlL® ; εὐ an Bots \ ͵ et " ἄχλοις οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος, Ph 15 reff. ἡ ἀλλά γε ὑμῖν εἰμι ἡ γὰρ ἡ σφραγίς μου τῆς * ἀποστο- vch.iv.15 A e a 3 > , λῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυριῳ. / οὶ 7 “ ἀνακρίνουσίν ἐστιν αὕτη. only. Deut. xxii. 7, z Acts iv. 9 reff. a here bis. Rom. x. 18,19. ch. xi. 22 only. P. reff. 3 ἐμὴ Υ ἀπολογία τοῖς ἐμὲ = Rom. ἐν. 11 (reff.) only. \ » ” 3 x Acts 3. 25. 48 μὴ 5 οὐκ ὃ ἔχομεν ὃ ἐξου- * Rom is. Gal ii. 8 y w. dat., 1 Pet. iii. 15 only. see Acts xxii. 1 pe 16 reff.). Ὁ cn. vil. 37 reff. rec aft ino. adds xpiorov, with DKLP rel Syr syr-w-ast copt [goth eth-pl arm] Chr Thdrt: om ABN a am(with [fuld] harl tol) sah eth{-rom] Orig, [(Tert,)] Ambrst : pref, F vulg-ed(with demid) Tert, Aug, [Pel]. (17 illeg.) 2. om A (i.e. from ev Kupiw to ev κυριω). eopaka BID3Fl PIN 6. rec (for μου tns) της euns, with DFKL rel Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt, apostolatus mei vulg D-lat [Ambrst Aug,]: txt (Meyer objects to tat, that opp. μου is prob a corrn to suit epy. μου above. surely improb) BPX 17 Orig, [Damasc], mei apostolatus F-lat G-lat. kuptw D}(and lat) tol [Syr] goth Chrg. This is om ev 3. rec αὐτὴ bef ἐστιν, with DFKL rel [vulg syr copt arm Euthal-ms] Thdrt ΤῊ] Ge: txt ABPX m 17 Chr, Damasce. abstaining from demanding them (vv. 1— 22). This self-denying conduct he further exemplifies, vv. 23—27, for their imita- tion. See Stanley’s introductory note; and Conyb. and Howson, vol. i. pp. 61, 457, edn. 2. 1.1 He sets forth, (1) his in- dependence of men (contrast ver. 19); (2) his apostolic office (for the order, see var. readd.) :—(3) his dignity as an Apostle, in having been vouchsafed a sight of Christ Jesus our Lord ;—(4) his efficiency in the office, as having converted them to God. ἐλεύθ.] So that the resolution of ch. viii. 13 is not necessitated by any depend- ence on my part on the opinion of others. ἑώρακα] Not, during the life of our Lord on earth, as Schrader, nor is such an idea supported by 2 Cor. v. 16; see note there ;— but, in the appearance of the Lord to him by the way to Damascus (Acts ix. 17; ch. xv. 8: see Neand. Pfl. u. Leit. p. 151, note) ; and also, secondarily, in those other visions and appearances,—recorded by him, Acts xviii.9 (Ὁ), xxii. 18,—and possibly on other occasions since his conversion. ov μικρὸν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἀξίωμα ἦν, Chrys. Hom. xxi. p. 180. ἐν κυρίῳ is not a mere humble qualification of τὸ ἔργον μου, as Chrys. ib., τουτέστι τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἔργον ἐστίν, οὐκ é€uov,—but designates, as else- where, the element, in which the work is done: they were his work as an Apostle, i. e. as the servant of the Lord enabled by the Lord, and SO IN THE Lorp. See ch. iv. 15. 2.) At least my apostle- ship cannot be denied by you of all men, who are its seal and proof. Chagan.* οὐκ εἰμί] οὐκ, because it belongs closely t the hypothesis: ‘if I am 2zo-Apostle,’ see ch. vii. 9. ἄλλοις, to others, i.e. in the estimation of others. ἀλλά ye, yet at least, is stronger than ἀλλά alone. The particle shews that the sentiment which it introduces has more weight than the other to which the ἀλλά is a reply. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 385. Meyer (after Klotz) remarks that “in the classics ἀλλά γε is never found without one or more words intervening :” those words being emphatic: e. g. Aristoph. Nub. 399, πῶς οὐχὶ Σίμων ἐνέπρησεν ..... ἀλλὰ τὸν αὑτοῦ γε νεὼν βάλλει; σφραγίς] as being the proof of his apos- tolie calling and energy, by their con- version; better than,—by the signs and wonders which he wrought among them, as Chrys. (al.) from 2 Cor. xii. 11—13, and perhaps misled by the similarity of σημεῖον and σφραγίς. Their conversion was the great proof: so Theodoret, ἀπόδειξιν yap τῶν ἀποστολικῶν κατορθωμάτων τὴν ὕμε- τέραν ἔχω μεταβολήν. ἐν κυρ. belongs to the whole sentence, see above, on ver. 1. 9.1 This belongs to the preceding, not to the following verses: αὕτη, Viz. the fact of your conversion: this word is the predicate, not the subject—as in John 1.19; xvii. 3, and stands here in the em- phatic place before the verb ; referring to what went before. With ver. 4a new course of questions begins, which furnish no ἀπο- λογία. τοῖς ἐμὲ dvakp.| For the dat. see Acts xix. 33; 2 Cor. xii. 19 :—to those, who call mein question: ἐμέ, emphatic, as Chrys. says, of ver. 2, κἂν βούληταί Tis. . μαθεῖν ποθεν ὅτι ἀπόστολός εἶμι, ὑμᾶς προ- βάλλομαι, p. 181. 4,) He resumes the questions which had been interrupted by giving the proof of his Apostleship. μὴ οὐκ éx.] μή asks the question: οὐκ ἔχομεν is the thing in question: Is it so, that we have not power....?% The plur. seems to apply to Paul alone: for though Barnabas is introduced momentarily in ver. 6, there can be no reference to him in ver. 11. It may perhaps be used as pointing out a matter of rzght, which any would have had on the same conditions (see ver. 542 ΠΡΟΣ / a \ ctrans.,here OLAV φαγεῖν και only. Ezek. "ὃ Ὧν \ » ss XXXVii. 2. VVALK intrans., Acts aoe φὴν ¥ xiii. 1 reff. d — Acts xiv. 4 (note), 14. 9 KOPINOIOTS A. c / ΄ \ e Ν d περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ oOLTrOL IX. econstr., acts ἐγὼ καὶ BapvaBas οὐκ ὃ" ἔχομεν ὃ ἐξουσίαν [" τοῦ] μὴ xiv. 9 reff. 4. (ew, so B'(Tischdf), mw DI FN?) 5. for αδελφην γυναικα, γυναίκας I (Clem,) Tert,: adeAdas γυναικας arm(and mss mentioned by Jer): adeApa: γυναικα lectt 8. 56: Sedul says, ὅη gr@co sorores, non mulieres, legitur : uxores Helvid Cassiod : mulierem sororem vulg(with harl’, | sororem mulierem] am demid fuld [Aug, }). (The variations shew, as in ch vii., how the sacred text was tampered with by the parties in the controversy on celibacy.) om 2nd of Καὶ [Damasc]. 6. om του (to conform to vv 4 and 5) ABD'FPR 17 Orig[-c, Euthal-ms] Isid,: ins D3KL rel [ Bas, ] Chr, Thdrt Damase Thl Cc. 11), and as thus not belonging personally to Paul, as do the things predicated in vv. 1, 2,15. This however will not apply to ver. 12, where the emphatic ἡμεῖς 7s per- sonal. φαγεῖν x. πεῖν] To eat and to drink, sc. at the cost of the churches: not with any reference to the eating of things offered to idols (as Schrader, iv. 132), nor to Jewish distinctions of clean and unclean (as Billroth and Olshausen) ;— see below, vv. 6, 7. 5. | Have we not the power to bring about with us (also to be maintained at the cost of the churches, for this, and not the power to marry, is here the matter in question) as a wife, a (believing) sister (or, ‘to bring with us a believing wife: these are the only ren- derings of which the words are legitimately capable. Augustine, De Opere Monacho- rum, 4 (5), vol. vi. p. 552, explains it thus: “Ostendit 5101 licere quod ceteris Apostolis, id est ut non operetur manibus ad hoc enim et fideles mulieres habentes terrenain substantiam ibant cum eis, et ministra- bant eis de substantia sua,” &c., and similarly Jerome adv. Jovin. i. 26, vol. ii. p- 277. So likewise Tertull., Theodoret, (Ecum., Isid. Pelus., Theophylact, Ambrose, and Sedul. SotooCorn.-a-Lap.and Estius. See Estius, and Suicer, γυνή, 11. And from this misunderstanding of the passage grew up a great abuse, and such women are mentioned with reprobation by Epi- phan. Her. 78, vol. i. (ii. Migne), p. 1043, under the name of ayarnrai. They were also called ἀδελφαί: and were forbidden under the name of συνείξακτοι by the 3rd Canon of the 1st Council of Nicza. See these words in Suicer), as also the other Apostles (in the wider sense, not only the twelve, for ver. 6, Barnabas is mentioned. It does not follow hence that all the other Apostles were married: but that all had the power, and some had used it) and the brethren of the Lord (mentioned not because distinct from the ἀπόστολοι, though they were absolutely distinct from the Twelve, see Acts i. 14, —but as a further specification of the most renowned persons, who travelled as missionaries, and took their wives with them. On the 46. τοῦ κυρ. see note, Matt. xiii. 55. They were in all proba- bility the actual brethren of our Lord by the same mother, the sons of Joseph and Mary. The most noted of these was James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 19; ii. 9, 12, compare Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18), the resident bishop of the Church at Jerusalem: the others known to us by name were Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, see note on Matt. ib.), and Cephas (Peter was married, see Matt. viii. 14. A beautiful tradition exists of his encouraging his wife who was led to death, by saying μέμνησο, ὦ αὕτη, Tov κυρίου, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. § 11 (63), p. 868 P. Euseb. H. E. iii. 30. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. § 6 (52), p. 535 P., relates that he had chil- dren)? On a mistake which has been made respecting St. Paul’s (supposed) wife, see note on ch. vii. 8. 6.] Or (im- plying what the consequence would then be, see ch. vi. 2, 9: does not introduce a new ἐξουσία, but a consequence of the denial of the last two) have only I and Barnabas (why Barnabas? Perhaps on account of his former connexion with Paul, Acts xi. 30; xii.25; xiii. 1—xv. 39; but this seems hardly enough reason for his being here introduced. It is not im- probable that having been at first asso- ciated with Paul, who appears from the jirst to have abstained from receiving sustenance from those among whom he was preaching, Barnabas, after his separa- tion from our Apostle, may have re- tained the same _ self-denying practice. “This is the only time when he is men- tioned in conjunction with St. Paul, since the date of the quarrel in Acts xv. 39.” Stanley) not power to abstain from work- ing (i. 6. power to look for our mainte- ἡ nance from the churches, without manual labour of our own. The Vulg. has ‘hoe k ο πεῖν; ὃ * μὴ "οὐκ ὃ ἔχομεν ὃ ἐξουσίαν ΑΒΡΡῚ ΄ R ἀπόστο- cet \ n / a A , λοι Kal of ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Kndas; ὃ ἢ μόνος | Ι al gi mi 1. 4 5—10. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 543 : , Cy fépyaterOar; 7 Tis ® στρατεύεται ἰδίοις ἃ ὀψωνίοις ' ποτέ ; t absol., Acts ζεσθαι... 7 4 ΄ 1. rn \ \ \ HY a ᾽ ho ΝΡ aBcDE τίς Κ φυτεύει ᾿ἀμπελῶνα, καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ οὐκ TR δ \KLPNa 5 ͵ , χὰ , n / at. ~ Ρ , al. Exod. νυ. Ibcefge ἐσθίει; τίς τ ποιμαίνει " ποίμνην, καὶ ° Ex τοῦ ὃ γάλακ- ἘΣ A hkim a , > et Be” Ἢ ὦ g Luke iii. - nol7, TOS τῆς "ποίμνης οὐκ : ἐσθίει ; 8 μὴ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἜΤΗ i a A \ a ? , > 2 Tim. ii. 4. ταῦτα λαλῶ, *H ‘Kal ὁ νόμος ταῦτα ov λέγει; 5 EV James y.1. Ν A M , 4 / Οὐ 8 7 a ieee pte yap τῷ Μωυσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται Ov * κημώσεις βοῦν only. , Isa. ᾿ 2 . 2 5 4 A A 2 > ¢ mh Luke iii. 14. ἀλοῶντα. μὴ τῶν βοῶν ἃ μέλει τῷ θεῷ, 10 ἢ Ov ἡμᾶς Ron Vi 3 2 Cor. xi. 5 only +. Esdr. iv. 56. 1 Macc. iii. 28. xiv. 32 only. dat.,ch. xi.5. 2 Cor. i. 15 al. i = Heb. i. 5, 13. k ch. iii. 6 reff. Deut. xx. 6. 1 Matt. xx. 1, &c. | al. in Gospp. elsw., here only. Isa. v. 1. m = Luke xvii. 7. 1 Kings xxv. 16. see Acts xx. 28 reff. nhere bis. Matt. xxvi. 31. Lukeii.8. John x. 16 only. Gen. xxxii. 16. o = here only (ver. 13). 2 Kings xii. 3. see John vi. 26, 50, 51. : p ch. iii. 2 reff. q Rom. iii. 5 reff. r Luke xi. 11,12. xviii. 11. Rom. ii. 15. ch. xvi. 6. 2Cor.i. 13. Job ix. 26. interrog., Luke xii. 41. Rom. i s here only +. (-0s, Ps. xxxi.9. Ezek. xix.4,9.) Deur. xxv. 4. t here iv. 9. bis. 1 Tim. v. 18 (froml.c.) only. 1 Chron. xxi. 20. Cyr. iii. 1. 30. gen., here only. usu. w. πέρι, Matt. xxii. 16 al. u constr., but ellipt., ch. vii. 21. Xen, %. rec (for Tov kaprov) ek Tov καρπου (corrn to conform to the follg ex του γαλ.), with (C3 ?)D2-3K LN3 rel [syrr copt arm] Chr, [Bas, Euthal-ms] Thdrt, de fructu vulg-ed (with am fuld): εἰς τῶν καρπων (C3?) Damase: txt ABC!D!FPN! 17 sah goth Orig-c,, Sructum G-lat flor(and harl tol) F-lat Bede. aft εἐσθιει ins Kat πινει DF. rec ins 7 bef τις ποιμ., with ACIKLPN rel Syr copt [Bas, Cyr,] Damase ce: txt B C?(appy) DF latt syr sah goth arm Chr, [ Euthal-ms] Thdrt ΤῊ] Ambrst Aug) alic}- for της ποίμνης, avtns D'F [flor] sah eth Chr, Thl Ambrst Aug{has both readgs]. 8. for Aadw, Acyw DF f. rec ins ovx: bef καὶ o vouos (omg ov bef λεγει), with KLP rel sah Dial, Chr, Thdrt [Cyr-p, Damase]: simly, but εἰ instead of ουχι, F(an sz lex hee dicit lat) [arm]: ecce etiam lex hec dixit Syr: txt ABCDX [vulg syr copt] Orig, Mcion-e, Epiph,, an et lex hee non dicit vulg. (17 def.) 9. γεγραπται yap, omg ev Tw μωυσεως vouw, D'(om yap D*[-gr]) F Orig, Hil,: txt ABCKLPR rel [vulg eth arm] Orig, [Dial, Euthal-ms Cyr,] Aug). rec (for Knuwoes) φιμωσεις (see 1 Tim v.18 and Lxx), with AB?CD?*KLPR rel Orig, Dial, Cyr[-p, Euthal-ms Damase] Thdrt,: txt B'D!F Chri Thdrt,. των βοων DF (vss[? ]). operandi,’ so also Tertull., Ambrose, al., omitting μή, and against the usage of ép- γάζεσθαι, see reff.) ἢ 7—12 ] Exam- ples from common life, of the reasonable- ness of the workman being sustained by his work. 7.| from the analogies of human conduct. (1) The soldier. ἰδίοις dwviors | with pay furnished out of his own resources,—the dativus modalis, see Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 7. oTpa- τεύομαι, of the soldier, who serves in the army: otpatevw. of the general, or the nation, that leads, or undertakes, the war. So Thucyd. iii. 101, of the states which joined the Peloponnesians, οὗτοι καὶ ξυνεστράτευον πάντες : but Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 29, of the wife of Tigranes, ἀνδρείως ξυνεστρατεύετο τῷ ἀνδρί. See Kiihner, ii. 18 (§ 398). (2) The husbandman. τὸν καρπ. αὖτ. οὐκ ἐσθ.) τὸν καρπόν, as Meyer observes, is simply objective: he does eat the fruit, though it may be only part of it. (3) The shepherd. Here it is ἐκ τοῦ γάλ., perhaps on account of the inappropriateness of τὸ γάλα .. .. ἐσθίει, and also of τὸ γάλα πίνει, milk being for the most part made into other articles of food, which sustain the shepherd partly directly, partly by their sale. 8.| Am I speaking these things merely sccord- ins περι bef ing to human judgment of what is right? Or (see note, ver. 6) does the law too not say these things? 9.] (It does say them): for in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not (on the fut. with an imperative meaning, ‘Thou shalt not,’ i.e. “ This I expect of thee, that thou wilt not,’ common to all civilized languages, see Winer, edn. 6, § 43. 5. c; Kiihner, § 446. 2) muzzle (the reading φιμώσεις probably came in from the similar place, 1 Tim. v. 18, and LXX. The verb κημόω occurs, with its substantive κημός, in Xen. de re equestri, v. 3, ἀεὶ ὅποι ἂν ἀχαλίνω- τον ἄγῃ, κημοῦν Set 6 γὰρ κημὸς ἀναπνεῖν μὲν οὐ κωλύει, δάκνειν δὲ οὐκ εᾷ) AN OX while treading out the corn (in the sense =‘ the ox that treadeth out :’ but strictly that would require τὸν β. τὸν ἀλοῶντα)--- ““ἀλοᾷν dicuntur boves, quum grana ex aristis exterunt pedibus, qui mos Orientis, sed et Gracie, ut ex Theophrasto et aliis discimus. Hic triturandi mos in Asia ho- dieque retinetur. Solent enim illarum re- gionum incole, postquam demesse fruges sunt, non domum eas ex agris, more nostra, granis nondum excussis, in horrea conyel- lere: sed in aream quandam sub dio com- portare: deinde, sparsis in aream manipulis frugum, boves et bubalos immittunt, qui TX. 544. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. ’ ΄ “ , τ a) \ 3 / “ , /. a ’ vActsxxi.22 ἡ πάντως λέγει ; δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ ἐγράφη, ὅτι * ὀφείλει * ἐπ TOM es. τς € - a ς A ee ee , wen. vii 820 ἐλ τίδι ὁ Υ ἀροτριῶν Y ἀροτριᾶν, καὶ ὁ ' ἀλοῶν * ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι e as ᾿ lal ΄ A “- Ν \ b] / yhere bis. ἤ τοῦ ὃ μετέχειν. 1} εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν ta” πνευματικὰ © ἐσπεί- “ Luke xvii. 7 > σι . \ only. Dent. payer, ἃ μέγα εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν τὰ ὃ σαρκικὰ * θερισομεν ; Xi1l. . Ζ ἈΞ). xiv. 9 reff. a here bis. ch. x. 17, 21, 30. Heb. ii. 14. v. 13. viii. 13 only. Prov.i.18. Esdr. τ. 40 al. Ὁ Rom. xv. 27 (reff.). c = Mark iv. 14 al. fr. ἃ =2 Cor. xi, 15 only. Gen. xly. 28. Isa. xlix. 6. e Matt. xxv. 24,26 ||. Johniv. 36. 2Cor.ix.6. Ps. cxxv. 5. 10. rec em ελπιδι bef οφειλει o apotpiwy (appy connected with the next var read,— fo throw the 1st em ελπιδι more into emphasis at the beginning, as the 2nd is at the end of the sentence), with D?{-gr] ΚΤ Ν ὁ rel [Syr] Chr Thdrt,/-ms,] ΤῺ] Ce (Orig-int, ] : o ew ελπ. ap. op. D'[-gr]: οφειλει o ep cAr. ap. οφειλει ΕἾ -gr]: in spe qui arat debet arare F-lat, so also D3(and lat): txt ABCPX! m 17 Orig, Dial, Eus, Cyr[-p Euthal-ms ] Damase, debet in spe qui arat arare vulg Aug, Pel Bede. ree (for ew ελπ. Tov μετέχειν) THs ελπιδος αὐτου μετεχεῖιν em ελπιδι, With D*3KLN3 rel Chr, Thdrt Damase Thl He: rns eAmdos αὐτου μετεχειν D![and lat] F[-gr(and G-lat)]: txt ABCPR!17 (vulg [ F-lat]) syrr (copt) sah (zth) Orig,[-¢,-int, Euthal-ms] Eus, Cyr, Aug,. (Meyer's account seems to be the right one, that, it being overlooked that adoav must be supplied aft adowy, μετεχειν was supposed to be infin aft οφειλει, and so του altered to αὐτου; then the sense bettered by insg rns ελπιδος and transposing the original ex ελπιδι to the end.) 11. ins ov bef μεγα D}(and lat). θερισωμεν CDF LP ὁ τὰ latt Thdrt [lat-ff] : txt ΑΒΚΝ rel Chr, Cyr, Damase ΤῊ] (ec. vel pedibus caleantes (see Micah iv. 13), vel curruum quoddam genus trahentes super frumenta, ex aristis eliciunt grana.” Ro- senmiiller. Is it for ΟΧῈΝ (generic) that God is taking care? We must not, as or- dinarily, supply μόνον, only for oxen, and thus rationalize the sentence: the question imports, ‘In giving this command, are the oxen, or those for whom the law was given, its objects?’ And to such a question there can be but one answer. Every duty of humanity has for its ultimate ground, not the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare ἔῃ that system of which MAN is the head: and therefore man’s welfare. The good done to man’s immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice, infinitely out- weighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes. So Philo (de victimas offerentibus, § 1, vol. ii. p. 251) rightly explains the spirit of the law: οὐ yap ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλόγων ὃ νόμος, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν νοῦν kK. λόγον ἐχόντων' &ste οὐ τῶν θυομένων φροντίς ἐστιν, ἵνα μηδεμίαν ἔχοι λώβην, ἀλλὰ τῶν θυόντων, ἵνα περὶ μηδὲν πάθος κηραίνωσι. 10.] Or (the other alter- native being rejected) on OUR account (δι᾽ ἡμᾶς, emphatic—not on account of men generally, but as Estius, “ propter nos evangelii ministros :” cf. the ἡμεῖς of vv. 11,12, with which this ἡμᾶς is inseparably allied) altogether (τὸ πάντως προϑθείς, ἵνα μὴ συγχωρήσῃ μηδ᾽ ὅτιοῦν ἀντ- εἰπεῖν τῷ ἀκροατῇ. Chrys. p. 183) does it (6 νόμος : or perhaps 6 θεός, but better the former, as above, τῷ θεῷ being only in- cidentally introduced as the confessed Author of the law, and 6 νόμος remaining the subject of the sentence) say (this)? (on our account) : foron our account it (viz. ov κημώσεις K.T.A., not, that which follows, q. esset γέγραπται) was written: because (argumentative, as the ground of ἐγράφη, --- not, as in some of my earlier editions, con- taining the purpose of ἐγράφη, expressed in its practical result) the plougher (not literal but spiritual, see below) ought to plough in hope, and the thresher (to thresh, see var. readd.) in hope of par- taking (of the crop). The words used in this sentence are evidently spiritual, and. not literal. They are inseparably connected with δ ἡμᾶς which precedes them: and according to the common explanation of them as referring toa mere maxim of agri- cultural life, would have no force whatever. But spiritually taken, all coheres. “The command (not to muzzle, &c.) was written on account of us (Christian teachers) be- cause we ploughers (in the γεώργιον θεοῦ, ch. ili. 9) ought to plough in hope,—and we threshers (answering to the βοῦς ἀλοῶν) ought to work in hope of (as the ox) having a share.” So Chrys. and Theophyl.: τουτέστιν, 6 διδάσκαλος ὀφεί- λει ἀροτριᾷν, καὶ κοπιᾷν ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι ἀμοιβῆς κ. ἀντιμισθίας. So also Meyer and De Wette: but by far the greater part of interpreters (also Stanley) take it literally ; understanding ἡμᾶς of mankind in general, and 6 ἀροτριῶν and ὁ ἀλοῶν of labourers in agriculture. No minute distinction must be sought between the ἀροτριῶν and the ἀλοῶν. The former is perhaps mentioned on account of the process answering to the breaking up the fallow ground of Heathen- ism :—the latter on account of its occur- rence in the precept. 11.] The ἡμεῖς (both times strongly emphatic:—we need sorely some means of marking in our Eng- lish Bibles, for ordinary readers, which words have the emphasis) is categoric, but. ABCD® KLPN @ beefg hklm ΠΟΙ͂ 47 11—14. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 545 ¢ / A 5 ~ / , ra 12 εἰ ἄλλοι τῆς ἴ ὑμῶν 8 ἐξουσίας ὃ μετέχουσιν, οὐ μᾶλλον f posn., see Cor. xii. 19 reff. and note. ς al . > ’ > h » »ϑ -“ > 7 7 3 \ ἡμεῖς ; ἀλλ οὐκ " ἐχρησάμεθα TH ἐξουσίᾳ ταύτῃ, ἀλλα τε gon. obi., 7 . , “4 / 7 - lad ~ πάντα ἱ στέγομεν, ἵνα μὴ Twa 1 ἐγκοπὴν * δῶμεν τῷ εὐαγ- / y 7° W1ppeloz τ Ss pee MIS. ἫΝ 0, 2 yediw τοῦ χριστοῦ. οὐκ ἰοἴδατε ὅτι οἱ τὰ ™" ἱερὰ "9 ἐργα- Matt. x. 1. John xvii. 2, Rom. ix. 21, Sir. x. 4. Xvii. 2. h ch. vii. 21 reff. ζό ἃ] ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐσθί | τῷ PO (Q) ich. xiii ὄμενοι [τὰ] ἐκ ἱεροῦ ἐσθίουσιν, οἱ τῷ P θυσιαστηρίῳ τἀν τι. τ. 4 παρεδρεύοντες τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ * 1 Ὁ 5 onli 5 on . Sir. συμμερίζονται; 13. οὕτως δ only. Si 7 bere only τ. {(-πτειν, Rom. xv. 22.) = 2 Cor. vi. 3. lch. vi. 2, ἄς. m adj., 2 Tim. iii, 15only. Josh. vi.7. __ n here only. o = Jer. xxxvii. (xxx.) 9. (ἐργασία, 1 Chron. vi. 43. ix. 13. xxviii. 13.) p ch. x. 18 reff. q here only. Proy. i. 21 only. (evmapedpos, ch. vii. 35.) r here only t. 12. ree etovoias bef ὑμων, with KL rel vulg Chr, Thdrt [Cyr, Damasc]: txt ABCDFPR m 17. 47 arm Chr,. for rav., αὐτὴ F[-gr |. for ov, ουχι &3. rec eykorny bef τινα, with D[-gr] F[-gr] KLP_rel syr ov κεχρήμεθα A. Chr, Thdrt [Cyr, Damasc]: txt ABCR 17 vulg D-lat [Euthal-ms] Tert Ambrst [Augatic |: om τινὰ F-lat G-lat sah arm Clem, Orig-int,. εκκοπηὴν D'LR ab! fg k o Orig[-c,; Chr-ms, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc] :* συνεκ. m. 13. rec om τα (bef ex), with AC D?(-3-gr] KLP rel syrr arm [Chr, Thdrt Damasc] : ins B D}{-gr] FX 46 coptt, que de sacrario sunt vulg G-lat coptt [Augatic |. (F-lat omits sacrario and reads que desunt [ Aug has templo for sacr.].) rec προςεδρευοντες (see ch vii. 35), with K LN? rel Chr, Thdrt Thl He: txt ABCD F{apai5p., so Euthal- ms] PX! 17. 47 Eus, Damasc. [m! repeats mposedp. bef συμμερ.] in fact applies to Paul alone. The secon- dary emphasis is on ὑμῖν... ὑμῶν. It is one of those elaborately antithetical sen- tences which the great Apostle wields so powerfully in argument. The ἡμεῖς--- ἡμεῖς, being identical, stand out in so much the stronger relief against the triple antithesis, ὑμῖν, πνευματικά, ἐσπείραμεν, —and ὑμῶν, σαρκικά, θερίσωμεν. If we read the subjunctive, for the usage after εἰ, see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. Ὁ. 2, end; ch. xiv.5; 1 Thess. v.10; Κα πον, ὃ 818 A. 1. The usage is common in Homer, Od. a. 204, al. fr..—doubtful in Herod. ii. 13; viii. 49, 118,—and hardly ever found in Attic writers. See Soph. Gd. Tyr. 198, εἴ τι νὺξ ἀφῇ, and (Ed. Col. 1442, εἴ σου στερηθῶ. πνευμ.. and σαρικ. (see Rom. xv. 27) need no explanation. The first are so called as belonging to the spirit of man (De W. and Meyer, as coming from the Spirit of God; but it is better to keep the antithesis exact and perspicuous), the second as serving for the nourishment of the flesh. 12.] ἄλλοι does not neces- sarily point at the false teachers; others may have exercised this power. ὑμῶν is the objective genitive: power over you, —see reff. The second ἀλλά is not in apposition with the first, but in opposition to the idea implied in ἐχρ. τῇ ἐξ. ταύτῃ. Meyer compares Hom. Il. a. 24 f., ἀλλ οὐκ ᾿Ατρείδῃ ᾿Αγαμέμνονι ἥνδανε θυμῷ, ᾿Αλλὰ κακῶς ἀφίει. στέγομεν] The word was commonly used, as may be seen in Wetst., of vessels containing, holding without breaking, that which was put into them; thence of concealing or cover- ing, as a secret; and also of enduring or bearing up against. In this last sense Vot. II. Diod. Sic. ili. 34, uses it literally of ice, στέγοντος τοῦ κρυστάλλου διαβάσεις στρα- τοπέδων κ. ἁμαξῶν ἐφόδους, --- πᾶ (xi. 25, Wetst. but ?) of a besieged fort, οὐ μήνγε τὴν ὁρμὴν... ἔστεγεν . .. τὸ... τεῖχος, «ὦν. ἀλλὰ ὑπείκειν ἠναγκάζετο. So also Zksch. Sept. ec. Theb. 216, πύργον στέγειν εὔχεσθε πολεμίων δόρυ. These last usages are very near akin to this of our text,— We endure all things: viz. labour, pri- vations, hardships. The ἐγκοπαί (hin- drances—so Diod. Sic. i. 32, speaks of the Nile as being πολλάκις διὰ τὰς ἐγκοπὰς avakA@uevos) would arise from his being charged with covetousness and self-seek- ing, which his zndependence of them would entirely prevent. 13, 14.] Analogy of the maintenance of the Jewish priesthood Jrom the sacred offerings, with this right of the Christian teacher, as ordained by Christ. Meyer rightly remarks, that ot τὰ ἱερὰ ἐργαζόμενοι can only mean the priests, not including the Levites: and therefore that both clauses apply to the same persons. ἐργάζεσθαι, ἔρδειν, ῥέζειν, are technical words for the offer- ing of sacrifice. See reff. to LXX. ἱεροῦ here, as θυσιαστηρίου is parallel with it below, is probably not ‘the sacrifice,’ ‘the holy thing, but the temple—‘ the holy building.’ Similarly Jos. B. J. v. 13. 6, makes the Zealots say, δεῖ... τοὺς τῷ ναῷ στρατευομένους ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τρέφε- σθαι. παρεδρ.] So Jos. contra Apion. i. 7, speaks of the priests as τῇ θεραπείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ προςεδρεύοντας. On the prac- tice referred to, see Num. xviii. 8 #.; Deut. xviii. 1 ff. No other priesthood but the Jewish can have been in the mind of the Apostle. The Jew knew of no θυσιαστῆ- Nw 546 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. TX. sconstr. dat, Καὶ ὁ κύριος "ἡ διέταξεν τοῖς TO εὐαγγέλιον ' καταγγέλ.- Acts ait λουσιν, ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου " ζῆν. 15 ἐγὼ δὲ ov " κέχρημαι Tikevieds οὐδενὶ τούτων" οὐκ ἔγραψα δὲ ταῦτα ἵνα οὕτως γένηται Inf shee wéy ἐμοί *YKadov yap μοι ἡμᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν ἢ τὸ nan 5 καύχημά μου **iva τὶς ὃ κενώσει. 16 ἐὰν γὰρ “ evay- 5 reff. u = Matt. iv. / 7 ‘A ΄ τ Matt. iv, γελίζωμαι, οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα: avayKn yap μοι 1 + (1ro wees ee , b] Ν >’ \ > / petal viii. 8) ἃ ἐπίκειται" ef Oval yap μοι f εστιν EAV 7) . εὐωγγελίσωμαι. 4 ser has a w Matt. xvii. 12. Luke xxii. 37. xxiii. 31. John xiv. 30. x = ch. vii. 1, 8,26. Jonah z Rom. iv. 2 reff. Prov. xvii. 6. c absol., Rom. xv. 20 reff. e Paul, here only. epp., Jude 11 Hos. ix. 12. iv. 3. y Mark ix. 42. constr., Acts xx. 39. a arrang. of words, 2 Cor. ii. 4 reff. b Rom. iv. 14 reff. d Acts xxvii. 20 reff. κρατερὴ δ᾽ ἐπικείσετ᾽ ἀνάγκη, Hom. Il. ¢. 458. only. gospp. (but not John) and Rey. passim. f here only. 15. rec ovderr expnoauny τουτων, with Καὶ rel Thdrt Thl (ἔς : οὐδεν τουτων ἐχρησα- μὴν ¢ [Chr]: ove expnoauny ovderr τ. R* 23: ovder ov κεχρημαι τ. 80: ουδενι κεχρημαι τ. D? L{sie (Tischdf)]: txt ABCD!3FPN! m 17 [Euthal-ms] Damase. οὐδεὶς B D'[and lat] 8! 17 sah Tert Ambrst-ed[and mss]: ovders μὴ A: τις F 26: wa τις ov un 109: wa τις C D?-3[-gr] KLPR? rel vulg(and F-lat) Chr[atie Bas,] Thdrt Damase Th! Ge Jer, Augfaticy. rec kevwon, With K rel Chr[aic Bas, Euthal-ms Damasc] Thdrt: txt ABCDFLPR® k 17. 47). 16. evayyeArCoua: LP f k Damase: evayyedrowuailevangelizavero| DF [vulg Augaiic |- for καυχημα, xapis gratia DF &}(txt X-corr'!) Ambrst-ms. rec ovat δὲ (clumsy alteration, not seeing that yap explains avayxn), with Καὶ δ rel syrr wth arm Chr, Thdrt [Damasc]: txt ABCDFPN! 17 latt coptt Orig,-int,; Ath, Chr, Cyr, { Euthal-ms Augaic] Ambrst Jer. for 2nd εστιν, εσται (alteration, to apply it better to the last day) F Ambrst: est aut erit G-lat: om 119. rec ευαγγελιζω- μαι (from -Cwua above), with AKN rel Orig, Ath, (Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc] : evangelizem D-lat G-lat(2nd altern): -¢oua: LP f m [Cyr-p,]: txt BCDF Chr,: evangelizavero vulg(and F-lat) G-lat(1st altern) [Orig-int, Aug, predicavero evange- lium Ambrst]. ριον but one: and he certainly would not have proposed heathen sacrificial customs, even in connexion with those appointed by God, as a precedent for Christian usage: besides that the idea is inconsistent with οὕτως καί : see below. 14.] So also (i.e. in analogy with that His other com- mand) did the Lord (Christ; the Author by His Spirit of the O. T. as well as the New) command (viz. Matt. x. 10; Luke x. 7, 8) to those who are preaching the gospel, to live of (be maintained by. Themistius (Kypke) has ζῆν ἐξ epyacias) the gospel. Observe, that here the Apos- tle is establishing an analogy between the rights of the sacrificing priests of the law, and of the preachers of the gospel. Had those preachers been likewise sacrificing priests, is it possible that all allusion to them in such a character should have been here omitted? But as all such allusion zs omitted, we may fairly infer that no such character of the Christian minister was then known. As Bengel remarks on ver. 13: ‘Si missa esset sacrificium, plane Paulus versu sequente apodosin hue ac- commodasset.’ 15.] οὐδενὶ τούτων is best explained of the different forms of efovota,—not, with Chrys. al., τῶν πολλῶν παραδειγμάτων ---πολλῶν γάρ μοι παρεχόν- των ἐξουσίαν, τοῦ στρατιώτου, τοῦ γε- ὠργοῦ; τοῦ ποιμένος, τῶν ἀποστόλων, τοῦ νόμου, τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν εἰς ὑμᾶς γενομένων, τῶν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τοὺς ἄλλους, τῶν ἱερέων, τοῦ προςτάγματος τοῦ χριστοῦ, οὐδενὶ τού- των ἐπείσθην εἰς τὸ καταλῦσαι τὸν ἐμαυτοῦ νόμον, καὶ λαβεῖν. Hom.xxii.p.193. True, that each of these examples pointed to ἃ form of ἐξουσία, and none of these forms had he made use of. See ref. on ch. vii. 21. ἔγραψα is the epistolary aorist—I wrote (write) not these things however, that it may be thus (viz. after the ex- amples which I have alleged) done to me (in my case, see reff.) :—for it were good (reff.) for me rather to die (or, better Jor me to die, see ref. Mark) than that any one should make void (the remarkable reading of the great MSs. appears to have arisen from the unnatural look of the future with ἵνα. It can only be explained by supposing an aposiopesis ; the Apostle breaking off at #, and exclaiming with fervour, τὸ καύχημά μου οὐδεὶς κενώσει) my (matter of) boasting. To understand ἀποθανεῖν as Chrys., Theophyl., c., Es- tius, Billroth, al., ἀποθ. λιμῷ, seems quite unnecessary. Further on, Chrys. himself expresses the true sense: οὕτω καὶ ζωῆς αὐτῷ γλυκύτερον hy τὸ γινόμενον :—and ABCDF KLPx abcef ghkIlm π 17. 47 Calvin, “tantum Evangelii promovendi . facultatem nimirum proprie vite prse- ferebat.” 16 ff.] The reason why he made so much of this materies glori- dtva... ABCDF KLPR abcde fghkl nmno 17. 47 15—19. 17 ? \ g Gy aX A / h θὲ ” = ’ εὐ yap “exw τοῦτο “πράσσω, ™ μισθὸν. ἔχω" ᾿ εἰ Η - / / ‘axwv, * οἰκονομίαν | πεπίστευμαι. ὁ "μισθός, ἵνα ° εὐαγγελιζόμενος ™ ἀδάπανον "θήσω τὸ » , ,’ \ \ A / εὐαγγέλιον, εἰς TO μὴ “καταχρήσασθαι τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ μου ΓΟ > / εἰ / \ “᾿ ’ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ; 19 Ρ ἐλεύθερος γὰρ wv ἐκ πάντων, 9. Col. i. 25... 1 Tim. i. 4 only. L.P. m here only +. KXxli. 12. Wisd. x. 21. ΡΥ. ἐκ, here only. w. απο, Rom. vii. 3. 18. rec (for 156 wov) μοι, with DFLPN? Augtalicy: txt A B(Tischdf coptt [Chr, Euthal-ms] Cyr, Ambrst Jer, erit mihi D'F. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTYS A. Isa. xxii. 19, 21 only. ἢ constr., Matt. xxii. 44 , (from Ps. cix. 1). rel syr Chr[atic Euthal-ms? LN. T. Vat(expr), not N. T. 547 \ eee δὲ g Rom. viii. 20 only. Exod. xxi. 13 only. ΄ δ᾽ ΄ 18 τις ουὖυν μου ἐστιν h = Matt. v. 12, i here only. Job xiy. 17 only. k Luke xvi: 2, 3,4. Eph. i. 10. iii. 2, 1 = Rom. iii. 2 reff. (from Gen. xvii. 5). Gen. Ep. Jer. 28 only. 3 Mace. vy. 22. Rom. iv. 17 oO ch, vii. 31 only f. Damasc] Thdrt edd 7, 8]) ΟΚΝῚ n 17 vulg Syr Pel Bede.—eorai[eori D3-gr(and E)] μοι rec aft To ευαγγελιον ins του χριστοῦ (see ver 12), with D?3PFKLP rel syrr Thdrt Jer: om ABCD!N a 17 vulg(not F-lat) D-lat coptt xth arm Chr, Cyr, [Euthal-ms] Ambrst Augratic 1 Pel Bede. ev(but marked for erasure) (not G). at end add μου D!{-gr]. andi: viz. that his mission itself gave him no advantage this way, being an office entrusted to him, and for which he was solemnly accountable: but in this thing only had he an advantage so as to be able to boast of it, that he preached the gospel without charge. οὐαὶ yap—explains the ἀνάγκη. On οὐαί ἐστιν, see ref. Hos. 17.) For (illustration and confirma- tion of οὐαὶ yap κ.τ.λ. above) if lam doing this (preaching) of mine own accord (asa voluntary undertaking, which in Paul’s case was not so, as Chrys., τὸ ἑκὼν x. ἄκων ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐγκεχειρίσθαι καὶ μὴ ἐγκεχειρίσθαι λαμβάνων: not, as Εἰ. V., al, willingly, for this was so), I have a reward (i. e. if of mine own will I took up the ministry, it might be conceivable that a μισθός might be due to me. That this was not the case, and never could be, is evident, and the μισθός therefore only hypothetical) : but if involuntarily (which was the case, see Acts ix. 15; xxii. 14; xxvi. 16), with 8. STEWARDSHIP (oix. emphatic) have I been entrusted (and therefore from the nature of things, in this respect I have no μισθός for merely doing what is my’ bounden duty, see Luke xvii. 710: but an ovat, if I fail in it. Chrys. observes well: οὐδὲ γὰρ εἶπεν, εἰ δὲ ἄκων, οὐκ ἔχω μισθόν, ἀλλ᾽ οἷκ. πεπίστ. δεικνὺς ὅτι καὶ οὕτως ἔχει μισθόν, ἀλλὰ τοιοῦτον, οἷον ὃ τὸ ἐπιταχθὲν ἐξανύσας, οὐχ οἷον ἐκεῖνος ὃ ἐκ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ φιλοτιμησάμενος κ. ὑπερβὰς τὸ ἐπίταγμα. p. 194). The above interpre- tation, which is in the main that of Chrys., Theophyl., Eeum. (altern.) al., Meyer, and De Wette, is the only one which seems to me to satisfy, easily and grammatically, all the requirements of the sentence, and at the same time to suit the logical structure of the context. The other Commentators 80 tn omnia alia, and adopt various forced and arbitrary constructions of the verse. 18.] Ordinarily, and even by De τη εξ. δὲ! : τὴν εξουσιαν DIFP, κατάχρασθαι A 17 [ Orig-c, ]. for 2nd μου, μοι F[-gr] Wette, thusarranged and rendered: ‘ What then is my reward? (It is), that in preaching Imake the gospel to be without cost, that I use not my power in the gospel. But this, though perhaps philo- logically allowable (against Meyer,—see John xvii. 3,—aitn ἐστὶν ἣ αἰώνιος ζωή, va χινιώσικωσιε «τειν also John xv. 8; 1 Johniv.17 (?)), is not true. His making the gospel to be without cost, was not his μισθός, but his καύχημα only: and these two are not identical. The καύχημα was present: the μισθός, future. Meyer’s rendering is equally at fault. He would make tis οὖν μού ἐστιν 6 μισθός; a question implying a negative answer—‘ What then is my reward? None: in order that I preach gratuitously, &c. But thus he severs otf (see below) the whole following context, vv. 19—23: and as it seems to me, stultifies the καύχημα, by robbing it altogether of the coming μισθός. I am persuaded that the following is the true rendering: What then is my reward (in prospect) that I (ἵνα, like ὅπως in classical Greek, with a fut. indic., points to the actual realization of the purpose, with more precision than when followed by the subjunctive. So Xen. Cyr. ii. 4. 31, Κῦρος, ὦ ᾿Αρμένιε, κελεύει of-w ποιεῖν σε, ὅπως ὡς τάχιστα ἔχων οἴσεις καὶ τὸν δασμὸν καὶ τὸ oTpaétevua,—Kiihner, Gramm. ii. 490, where see more examples) while preach- ing, render the gospel without cost (i.e. what reward have I in prospect that in- duces me to preach gratuitously) in order not to use (as carrying out my design not to use) [to the full] (katayp. see ref. and note: not, to abuse, as E. V.) my power in the gospel (= τῇ ἐξουσ. μου τῇ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγ., as often; ef. τοῖς κυρίοις. κατὰ σάρκα, Eph, vi. ὅ ; οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν χριστῷ, 1 Thess. iv. 16, al. fr.) ? 19 ἢ. He now proceeds to answer the question, ‘ What prospect of reward could induce N w 2 548 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. rx. lal 4 “4 \ / , qgactsvi.e πᾶσιν ἐμαυτὸν ἃ ἐδούλωσα, Wa * τοὺς " πλείονας δ κερδήσω" reff. 20 \ 9 , A ᾽ ͵ - ᾽ a δ ᾽ εἰζακο νὴ. 48, 20 καὶ ἐγενόμην τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὡς ᾿Ιουδαῖος, ἵνα, ‘lov- sing.) Acts Y nt ᾽ ab Re Star , a ¢€ \ , e e \ ΄ \ xx 2 = Salous ὅ κερδήσω' τοῖς ‘UTO νομὸν ws ‘vTrO νόμον,. μὴ y. 6 al. Ρ \ ΄ \ \ , ᾿ Exod. xxiii. ὦν αὐτὸς "ὑπὸ νόμον, iva τοὺς ‘uo νόμον ὃ κερδήσω' 2 -vat. ἄς. ᾿ ς a ᾽ ΄ e / \ XN ” “ _ (om art. AB.) 21 τοῖς ἃ ἀνόμοις ὡς ἃ ἄνομος, μὴ ὧν ἃ ἄνομος θεοῦ iii. 15. ' ey aa , ‘ > τ θα, ἀλλ᾽ * ἔννομος χριστοῦ, ἵνα “ κερδάνω τοὺς “ ἀνόμους. Spee ie cy 99 al. fr.t. Oo ~~ ’ ; , cal w.2 θ au wD θ / ter \ w2 θ a ΠΑΡ ἐγενομὴν τοῖς “ ἀσῦθενεσιν “ ἀσθενης, wa τοὺς “ ἄσθενεις xxii. 3 Symm. -d0s, Phil. i. 21.) t Rom. vi. 14,15. Gal. iv. 4, 5, 21. only. Wisd. xvii. 2. {-μως, Rom. ii. 12.) v = here (Acts xix. 39) only +. u=here4times. Acts ii. 23 w = Rom. νυ. 6. 19. ins ev bef πασιν D!(and lat). 20. om καὶ D}(and lat) τὰ coptt. om Ist ws F-gr 39. 67? (Clem) Orig, -int, ] Tert Sedul. (ws quasi G-marg.) [F-gr reads ἰουδαιος ιουδαιοις, G! tovdarors(-corr -os) ιουδαιοις, F-lat judeis jude@is. | rec OM μη wy avTos ὑπὸ νόμον (i. 6. from νομὸν to νομον, by oversight of copyist), with D3[-gr] K rel Syr copt eth Orig, Thdrt [Chraiie (Cyr) ΤῊ] ec (Mar-mere, (quoting Nest)) |: ins ABCD! FPR 17 latt syr sah goth arm Chr -txt, | Cyr, Damase Orig-int,[not ed Delarue }].—om from κερδησω to κερδησω L [ Kuthal-ms}. 21. rec θεω and xpictw (confusion of vowels and not observing the constr : see note), with D3/-gr] KL rel sah [arm Cyr-p,] Thdrt: txt ABCD!IFPX ἃ m 17 latt syr copt { goth] Orig,[-c,] Did, Chr, Cyr[-p. Euthal-ms] Isid, Damase Ath{-int, Ambrst-txt Aug, Mar-merc(quoting Nest) }. rec Kepdyow (from ver 20), with DK LN rel Orig,| -c, } Did, Chr, Thdrt [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms 1514; Damasc]: txt ABCFPR? [im] 17 (κερδανωμεν Clem,), and m Orig,[-c] in next verse.—rous avouous bef κερδ. D. rec om τοὺς (probably to suit ιουδαιους above), with FKLN$ rel Chr Thdrt [Euthal-ms_Isid Damase}: ins ABCDPN! 17 Orig, Did. 22. att eyevouny ins δε και autem et F. ασθενουσιν DF, rec aft ασθενε- ABCDF KLPN abcde fghk mno 17. 47 σιν ins ws (to tally with the three former), with C D[-gr] FK LP83 rel [syrr coptt goth zeth arm] Orig,[-c] Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasc] Thl: om ABR* vulg(not F-lat} D-lat Orig, (retaining the three former) Orig-int, Cypr, Ambr;aicj Ambrst Aug Bede. me to do this?’ [Yea (literally | For, q. ἃ. the reward must have been great and glorious in prospect) being free from (the power of) all men, I enslaved myself (when I made this determination: and have continued to do so) to all, that I might gain (not τοὺς πάντας, which he could not exactly say, but) the largest number (of any : that hereatter Paul’s converts might be found to be of πλείονες : see below on ver. 24). Beugel bas remarked on κερ- δήσω, ‘ congruit hoc verbum cum conside- ratione mercedis: but ‘ congruit’ is not enough: it is actually THE ANSWER to the question τίς μού ἐστιν ὃ μισθός; This ‘lucrifecisse’ the greater number is dis- tinctly referred to by him elsewhere, as his reward in the day of the Lord: tis yap ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρὰ ἢ στέφανος καυχή- σεως; ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρου- cia; ὑμεῖς γάρ ἐστε ἡ δόξα ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ χαρά. 1 ‘Thess. ii. 19, 20. And it is for this reason that Wa... . κερδ. is three times repeated : and, as we shall presently see, that the similitude at the end of the chapter is chosen. 20—22.| Spe- cializes the foregoing assertion πᾶσιν ἐμ. ἐδυύλωσα, by enumerating various parties to whose weaknesses he had conformed himself, in order to gain them. 20. τοῖς “Ipvd. ὡς “Iovd.| See examples, Acts xvi. 3; xxi. 26. οὐκ εἶπεν, Ἰουδαῖος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Ιουδαῖος, ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι οἰκονομία Td πρᾶγμα ἦν, Theophyl. after Chrys. The Jews here are not Jewish converts, who would be already won in the sense of this passage. τοῖς ὑπὸ vopov....] These again are not Jewish converts (see above) ; nor proselytes, who would not be thus dis- tinguished from other Jews, but are much the same as ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, only to the number of these the Apostle did not belong, not being himself (αὐτός contrasts with ὡς above) under the law, whereas he was nationally a Jew. 21. τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄν. The ἄνομοι are the Heathen: hardly, with Chrys., such as Cornelius, fearing God but not under the law. Paul became as a Heathen to the Heathen, e.g., when he discoursed at Athens (Acts xvii.) in their own manner, and with arguments drawn from their own poets. μὴ ὧν «.7.A. | not being (being conscious of not being, remembering well in the midst of my ἀνομία that I was not. This is implied by μή, which is subjective, giving the convic- tion of the subject, not merely the objective - Jact, as οὐκ ὥν would do) an outlaw from God (θεοῦ and χριστοῦ are genitives of de- pendence, as after κατήκοος, ἔνοχος, &e.) but a subject-of-the-law of Christ (the words seem inserted rather to put before the reader the true position of a Christian 2U—24 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOT®S A. 919 ΄ A wn 7 7 , / Sxepdnow. * τοῖς *Taow γέγονα πάντα, ἵνα " πάντως x Rom. xi. 32 \ 2 “ τινᾶς ὅ σώσω. MN > aA / Ἁσυγκοίνωνος αὑτοῦ γένωμαι. ἐν “ σταδίῳ τρέχοντες πάντες μὲν τρέχουσιν, εἷς δὲ \ a ¢ , λαμβάνει τὸ ἃ βραβεῖον ; οὕτως “ τρέχετε, iva Ὁ ch. vi. 2. ver. 13 al. ouly. Polyb. xviii. 29. 4 al. f — Rom. ix. 30. Phil. iii. 12. Exod. xv. 9. for γέγονα, eyevounv F Clem,. 24 ὃ οὐκ ὃ οἴδατε ς — here {Luke xxiv. 13. John vi. 19. xi. 18. d Phil. iii. 14 only Τ. Q cf ‘ “Ὁ / “ ἘΣ 23 πάντα δὲ ποιῶ διὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἵνα Υ λεῖα αχὶ. 33 ez = Rom. mM, “ OTL Ob Rev. 1.9 only. (-νεῖν, Eph. Vv. 18} Rev. xiv. 20. xxi. 16) e = Rom. ix. 16 reff. f καταλά- rec ins ta bef παντα (prob to suit τοις πασιν : but often when πανταὰ occurs, ta is insd bef it in some mss), with D?3KLP rel Orig,[-c, | Mae, Chr, Thdrt [Cyr-p, Damasc]: txt ABCD!FX Clem, Orig, Naz, Chr, Cyr| -jer, Euthal-ms]. for mavtTws Tivas, παντας (conformation to the foregoing clauses) DI latt lat-ff, τους παντας 17 Clem, Orig,(but wayta, [Mac,, παντας ἡ τινας Orig-c, ]). 23. rec (for mayta) rovro, with KL rel syrr goth Thdrt Damasc Thl Cc: txt ABCDFPX τὰ 17 latt coptt ath arm Orig Ambrst Pel. iL-¢} Naz, Chr,(schol on 7) [Euthal-ms] 24. aft βραβειον ins eyw Se Acyw υμιν ego autem dico vobis F. with regard to God’s law revealed by Christ, than merely with an apologetic view to keep his own character from suffering by the imputation of ἀνομία) that I might gain those who had no law. κερδανῶ (here only in N.T.) and κερδήσω are both found in the classics: see Matthiz, ὃ 239, and Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 740. 22. | The ἀσθενεῖς here can hardly be the weak Christians of ch. villi. and Rom. xiy., who were already won, but as in ref., those who had not strength to believe and re- ceive the Gospel. This sentence then does not bring out a new form of condescen- sion, but recapitulates the preceding two classes, τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον... .. τοῖς ἀνόμοις. τοῖς πᾶσιν. .. .] This sums up the above, and others not enumerated, in one general rule,—and the various occa- sions of his practising the condescension (avrists) in one general result (perfect). To all men I am become all things (i. e. to each according to his situation and pre- judices) that by all means (‘omnino:’ or perhaps as Meyer, in all ways: but I pre- fer the other) I may save some (τινάς is emphatic: some, out of each class in the πάντες. It is said, as is the following verse, in extreme humility, and distrust of even an Apostle’s confidence, to shew them the immense importance of the μισθός for which he thus denied and submitted him- self). 23.| But (q.d. ‘not only this of which I have spoken, but αἰ} all things I do on account of the gospel, that I may be a fellow-partaker (with others) of it (of the blessings promised in the gospel to be brought by the Lord at His coming). 24 ff. | ‘This is my aim in all I do: but inasmuch as many run in a race, many reach the goal, but one only receives the prize,—I as an Apostle run my course, and you must so run yours, as each to Jabour not to be rejected at last, but to gain the glorious and incorruptible prize,’ This, as compared with the former con- text, seems to be the sense and connexion of the passage. He was anxious, as an Apostle, to labour more abundantly, more effectually than they all: and hence his condescension (συγκατάβασι5) to all men, and self-denial: accompanied with which was a humble self-distrust as to the great matter itself of his personal salvation, and an eager anxiety to secure it. These he proposes for their example likewise. 24.| The allusion is primarily no doubt to the Isthmian games [‘ celebrated under the shadow of the huge Corinthian citadel’ (Stanley)]; but this must not be pressed too closely: the foot-race was far too common an element in athletic con- tests, for any accurate knowledge of its predominance in some and its insigni- ficance in others of the Grecian games to be here supposed. Still less must it be imagined that those games were to be celebrated in the year of the Epistle being written. The most that can with cer- tainty be said, is that he alludes to a contest which, from the neighbourhood of the Isthmian games, was well known to his readers. See Stanley’s note: who, in following out illustrations of this kind, writes with a vivid graphic power pecu- liarly his own. βραβεῖον] Wetst. quotes from the Schol. on Pindar, Olymp. 1, λέγεται δὲ τὸ διδόμενον. γέρας τῷ νικήσαντι ἀθλητῇ ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν διδόντων αὐτὸ βραβευτῶν βραβεῖον, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀθλούντων ἄθλον, and from the Etymol., βραβεῖον λέγεται 6 παρὰ τῶν BpaBevTav διδόμενος στέφανος τῷ νικῶντι. οὕτως τρ. Thus (after this manner—viz. as they who run all, each endeavouring to be the one who shall receive the prize :— not, as the one who receives it (Meyer, De Wette),—for the others strive as earnestly as he: still less must we take ἵνα κατα- λάβητε for ws καταλαβεῖν, which is barely 550 pibuke ἘΠῚ 24. Ayre. John xviii. 36. _Col. i. ἐκεῖνοι 1 Tim. uA ‘10 ὙΌΣ. vi, 2 Tim. 15 5 only +. Sir. iv. 28 al. Dan. vi. 14 Theod. Rom. i. 23 (reff.). iii. 15 reff. Rep. Lac. iv. 6. v. 11, 12. δὲ 1 ἄφθαρτον. m Luke xx. 25. o here only + = r Acts νυ. 40 reff. 25. om ουν Καὶ Καὶ 6. 119 arm Clem, Iren{-int, ] : ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. me οἀδήλως, "οὕτως Ῥπυκτεύω " ὡς οὐκ h constr., Acts xx. 33 reff. Heb. xiii. 13 (James 11, 24 y. r.) only. (-Aos, ch. xiv. 8. q Acts xxii. 23. ch. xiv. 9. Eph. ii. IX. 25 nr δὲ e g 3 h , ees , 25 πᾶς δὲ ὁ 8 ἀγωνιζόμενος ὃ πάντα | ἐγκρατεύεται" 9 Ν , / Lal kK μὲν οὖν ἵνα ᾿ φθαρτὸν στέφανον λάβωσιν, ἡμεῖς οθ > \ ΠῚ / n ec ’ n e > 26 ἐγὼ "πὶ τοίνυν " οὕτως τρέχω "WS οὐκ ΜᾺ / 4 ἀέρα * δέρων" i ch. vii. 9 (reff.) only + k ch. vi. 4 reff. Isa. ii. "10. v.13. n ch, p here only+. Xen. ees 1 Tim. vi. 17.) Rey, ix. 2. xvi. 17 only. Wisd. 1 Thess. iv. 7. insd in svyr with an asterisk. (a at the beginning of αφθαρτον is written over the line by δ) allowable, and here would not suit the sense; the οὕτως being particularized presently by one point of the athletes’ preparation being specially alleged for their imitation) run (not καὶ ὑμεῖς τρέχετε, because the evident analogy between the race and the Christian conflict is taken for granted. If, as Dr. Peile imagines, a contrast had been intended, between the stadium where one only can receive the prize, and the Christian race where all may, it must have stood οὕτως δὲ ὑμεῖς τρέχετε, ὡς Kal (πάντας ἢ) καταλαβεῖν. But such contrast would destroy the sense), in order that ye may fully obtain (the prize of your calling, see Phil. ili. 14. On λαμβάνω and καταλαμβάνω see note, ch. vii. 31). 25.] The point in the οὕτως, the conduct of the athletes in regard of temperance, which he wishes to bring into especial prominence for their imitation :—as concerning the matter in hand,—his own abstinence from receiving the world’s pelf, in order to save himself and them that heard him. The δέ specifies, referring back to οὕτως. The emphasis is on πᾶς, thus shewing οὕτως to refer to the πάντες who τρέχουσιν. ἀγωνιζόμενος is more general than τρέχων, —q. ἃ. ‘ Every one who engages, not only in the race, but in any athletic contest, and thus strengthening the inference. The art. (6 ἄγων.) brings out the man as an enlisted and professed ἀγωνιζόμενος, and regards him in that capacity. Had it been πᾶς δὲ ἀγωνιζ., the sense would have been, ‘ Now every one, while contending,’ &c., making the discipline to be merely accidental to his contending —which would not suit the spiritual antitype, where we are enlisted for life. Examples of the practice of abstinence in athletes may be seen in Wetst. in loc. I will give but two (1) Hor. de Arte Poet. 412: “Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam, Multa tulit fecitque puer, sudavit et alsit: Ab- stinuit venere et vino.” (2) Epict. Ὁ: 86: θέλεις OAT LA νικῆσαι; κἀγὼ νὴ τοὺς θεούς, κομψὸν γάρ ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ σκόπει καὶ τὰ καθηγούμενα καὶ τὰ ἀκόλουθα. καὶ οὕτως ἅπτου τῶν ἔργων. δεῖ σ᾽ εὐτακτεῖν, ἀναγ- κοτροφεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι πεμμάτων, γυμνά- ζεσθαι πρὸς ἀνάγκην ἐν ὥρᾳ τεταγμένῃ, ἐν καύματι, ἐν ψύχει, μὴ ψυχρὸν πίνειν, μὴ οἶνον" ws ἔτυχεν ἁπλῶς, ὡς ἰατρῷ παρα- δεδωκέναι σαυτὸν τῷ ἐπιστάτῃ, εἶτα εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα παρέρχεσθαι. ἐκεῖνοι ] 501]. ἐγκρατεύονται. ἐν οὖν, ‘immo vero ’ (reff.). The Schol. on Pind. Isthm. ὑπόθεσις, cited by Meyer, says: στέφυς δέ ἐστι τοῦ ἀγῶνος πίτυς, τὸ δὲ ἀνέκαθεν σέλινα καὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν ὁ στέφανος. ἡμεῖς δέ, scil. ἐγκρατευόμεθα ἵνα λάβωμεν στέφανον. He takes for granted the Christian’s temperance in all things, as his normal state. 26.] I then (ἐγώ emphatic—recalls the attention from the incidental exhortation, and reminiscence of the Christian state, to the main subject, his own abstinence from receiving, and its grounds. τοίνυν, as distinguished from other particles which imply restriction of what has been generally said to some par- ticular object, indicates the dropping of minute or collateral points, and return- ing to the great necessary features of the subject,—and this, as introducing some short and pithy determination or conclu- sion: see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 348. E. g., vi. 3. 17, τούτων μὲν τοίνυν ἅλις εἴη, ἃ δὲ καιρὸς ἡμῖν εἰδέναι, ταῦτα, ἔφη, διηγοῦ) 80 run as (οὕτως---ὡς, see reff.) not uncertainly (reff.: cf. also Polyb. ili. 54. 5, τῆς χιόνος ἄδηλον ποιού- ons ἑκάστοις Thy erlBaow:—‘uncertainly,” i. e. without any sure grounds of con- tending or any fixed object for which to contend; both these are included, Chry- sostom rightly brings it into subordination to the main subject, the participation with idolaters :—ri δέ ἐστιν, οὐκ ἀδήλως ; πρὸς σκοπόν τινα βλέπων, φησίν, οὐκ εἰκῆ καὶ μάτην, καθάπερ ὑμεῖς, τί γὰρ ὑμῖν γίνεται πλέον amv τοῦ εἰς εἰδωλεῖα eistevat, καὶ τὴν τελειότητα δῆθεν ἐκείνην ἐπιδείκνυσθαι; οὐδέν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ τοιοῦτος, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἅπερ ποιῶ, ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν πλησίον σωτηρίας ποιῶ. κἂν τελειότητα ἐπιδείξωμαι, δι᾽ αὐ- τούς: κἂν συγκατάβασιν, δι᾽ αὐτούς: κἂν ὑπερβῶ Πέτρον ἐν τῷ μὴ λαμβάνειν, ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλισθῶσι' κἂν καταβῶ πλέον πάν- των, περιτεμνόμενος καὶ ξυρώμενος, ἵνα μὴ ὑποσκελισθῶσι. Hom. xxiii. p. 201); 5850 fight I, as not striking the air (and not ABCDF KLPx abcde fghkl mno 17, 47 25—27. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT®S A. ney 27 ἀλλ᾽ "ὑπωπιάζξω μου TO σῶμα καὶ "δουλαγωγῶ, ΩΝ "μή ἅπως ἄλλοις κηρύξας αὐτὸς " ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι. (πίον, 30.) there only +. Gen. xliii. 18 Symm. (Fischer, but not in Montf or Bahrdt. [Field believes it to be from a scholium ].) u ch. vili. 9 (Rom. xi. 21] al8. P. (exc. Acts xxvii. 29 v. r.) v Rom. i. 28 reff. 27. αλλα Bm. uromie(w 1)ϑ(υπωπ-} 6 11 m)(Treg [and Tischdf: m Ser]) 46. 113-marg Clem, Eus, Naz, Chr-ms, Thdrt,- ποπιαζω FKLP a bl ο f g? no Ephr, Naz, Bas-2-mss, Chr-ms Cyr, [Euthal-ms] Damasc;. (castigo vulg(and F-lat) G-lat(1st altern) Ambr[aiic Ambrst] Aug ; devidum facto D-lat G-lat(2nd altern) [spec ] Iren-int, Paulin,.) στομα F-gr. my adversary). The allusion is not to a σκιαμαχία or rehearsal of a fight with an imaginary adversary, as Chrys. (ἔχω yap ὃν πλήξω), Theophyl. al. m., but to a fight with a real adversary (viz. here, the body) in which the boxer vainly hits into the air, instead of striking his antagonist. So Kntellus in the pugilistic combat, Ain. v. 446, ‘vires in ventum effudit,’ when Dares ‘ictum venientem a vertice velox Previdit, celerique elapsus corpore cessit.? See ex- amples both of what is really meant, and of the σκιαμαχία, in Wetst. Obs., in both places ov« is used and not μή, as importing the matter of fact, and joined closely with the adverb in one case and the verb in the other. 27.] But I bruise my body (ὑπωπιάζω, lit. to strike heavily in the face so as to render black and blue,—‘bz- ώπια,--τὰ ὑπὸ τοὺς ὦπας τῶν πληγῶν ἴχνη, ut ait Pollux: sed latius dici sic ccepere ἀφ᾽ oiasdnmototy πληγῆς τραύματα, ut ait Scholiastes ad Aristoph. Acharn., Cicero Tusc. 2, ‘ Pugiles cestibus con- tusi,’ i. 6. ὑπωπιαζόμενοι." Grot. The body is the adversary, considered as the seat of the temptations of Satan, and espe- cially of that self-indulgence which led the Corinthians to forget their Christian com- bat, and sit at meat in the idol’s temple. The abuse of this expression to favour the absurd practice of the Flagellants, or to support ascetic views at all, need hardly be pointed out to the rational, much less to the Christian student. It is not even of fasting or prayer that he is here speaking, but as the context, vv. 19—23, shews, of breaking down the pride and obstinacy and self-seeking of the natural man by laying himself entirely out for his great work — the salvation of the greatest number: and that, denying himself “solatium” from without: “ My hands have been worn away (cf. χεῖρες αὗται, Acts xx. 34) with the black tent-cloths, my frame has been bowed down with this servile labour (cf. ἐλεύθερος . ἐδούλωσα, ver. 19). Stanley) and enslave it (‘etiam δουλαγωγεῖν a pyctis desumptum est; nam qui vicerat, victum (vinctum ?) trahebat adversarium quasi servum.’ Grot. But this seems to want confirmation. I can find no account of such a practice in any of the ordinary [Steph δουλαγαγω (not C). |} sources of information. Certainly Dares is not made the slave of Entellus in Aun. v.: and Virgil is generally accurate in such matters. I had rather give a more general meaning: that viz. of the necessary sub- jection, for the time, of the worsted to the prevailing combatant), lest perchance having proclaimed (κηρ. absolute [ answer- ing to our use of preach]: as in Asch. Eum. 566, κήρυσσε, κῆρυξ, καὶ στρατὸν κατειργάθου (Peile). The subject of the proclamation might be the laws of the combat, or the names of the victors (An. v. 245), each by one in the capacity of herald: probably here the former only, as answering to the preaching of the Apostles, The nature of the case shews, that the Christian herald differs from the agonistic herald, in being himself ὦ combatant as well, which the other was not: and that this is so, is no objection to thus under- standing κηρύξας. “This introduces in- deed a new complication into the meta- phor: but it is rendered less violent by the fact, that. . . . sometimes the victor in the games was also selected as the herald to announce his success. So it was a few years after the date of this Epistle, in the case of Nero. Suet. Nero, c. 24.” Stan- ley) to others, I myself may prove re- jected (from the prize : not, as some Com- mentators, from the contest altogether, for he was already in zt). An examination of the victorious combatants took place after the contest, and if it could be proved that they had contended unlawfully, or unfairly, they were deprived of the prize and driven with disgrace from the games. Such a person was called ἐκκεκριμένος, and ἀποδεδοκιμασμένος, see Philo de Che- rub., ὃ 22, vol. i. p. 152. So the Apostle, if he bad proclaimed the laws of the combat to others, and not observed them himself, however successful he might ap- parently be, would be personally rejected as ἀδόκιμος in the great day. And this he says with a view to shew them the necessity of more self-denial, and less going to the extreme limit of their Christian liberty; as Chrys. εἰ yap ἐμοὶ τὸ κηρῦξαι, τὸ διδάξαι, τὸ μυρίους mpos- αγαγεῖν οὐκ ἀρκεῖ εἰς σωτηρίαν, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν παρασχοίμην ἄληπτα, 552 ΠΡῸΣ KOPIN@OIOTS A. ἊΣ X. τυροῦ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς * ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι οἱ w Rom. xi. 25 reff. x Acts v.30 X qrarépes * ἡμῶν πάντες Υ ὑπὸ THY νεφέλην Y ἦσαν καὶ πάν- .. μων "Rete iv, 13 τες 28a τῆς θαλάσσης * διῆλθον, 2 καὶ πάντες * εἰς τὸν ABCDF δαὶ ἣν a. Μωυσῆν 5 ἐβαπτίσαντο ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, seam er: Ἔ a 3 καὶ πάντες TO αὐτὸ ἢ βρῶμα ° πνευματικὸν ἔφαγον, * Kat ες ; πὰ a Acts viii b Rom. xiv. 15 reff. Rom. i. 11. ch. ii. 13. xii, 1. xiv. ‘al. ) only, exc. 1 Pet. ii. 5 bis Ὁ. c Paul (here 3ce. Crap. X. 1. rec (for yap) δε (the connexion not being perceived or wrong word sup- plied aft omn at beg of lection), with KLX® rel syrr Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasc] : a goth arm: txt ABCDFPN! 17 latt coptt Clem, Orig, Mcion-e, Did, [Bas,] Cyr, ren-int, Cypr. 2. δ. euecOaae ACDFR 17 Dial, Bas, Did, Chr, Cyr[-p] Thdrtaiq Thl: txt BKLP rel Orig, Chr, ‘Thdrt, Damase (ec. (Notwithstanding the strong manuscript evidence, the passive appears “to have been a corrn to the more usual expression in the case of Christian baptism.) transp ved. and θαλ. F. 3. om αὑτὸ A Cl(appy) 46 eth [Did, Chr, Promiss,]: om τὸ αὐτὸ RI, πνευματικὸν bef βρωμα BC?2PR! 93 [Cyr, Euthal-ms}]: πνευματικὸν εφαγον bef βρωμα A 17. 137 Mcion-e: txt (ΟἹ ?) DF KLN$ rel [latt syrr copt goth arm] Orig,|-int,] Dial, Chr, Thdrt [(Did,) Damasc] Iren-int. πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὑμῖν. p. 202. Χ. 1-- 22.) He proceeds, in close connexion with the warnings which have just preceded, to set before them the great danger of commerce with idolatry, and enforces this by the example of the rebellions and rejections of God’s ancient people, who were under a dispensation analogous to and typical of ours (1—11); and by the close resemblance of our sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,—their eating of meats sacrificed,—and the same act among the heathen, in regard of the UNION in each case of the partakers in one act of parti- cipation. So that THEY COULD NOT EAT THE IDOL’S FEASTS WITHOUT PARTAKING OF IDOLATRY = VIRTUALLY ABJURING CHRIST (vv. 15—22). 1.1 γάρ joins to the preceding. He had been inculeating the necessity of self- -subduing (ch. ix. 2427), and now enforces it in the particular departments of abstaining from fornication, idolatry, &e., by the example of the Jews of old. ov θέλω . , see reff. vi wat. ἡμῶν] He uses this expression, not merely speaking for himself and his Jewish converts, but regarding the Christian church as a con- tinuation of the Jewish, and the believer as the true descendant of Abraham. πάντες... πάντες... πάντες, each time with strong emphasis, as opposed to τοῖς πλείοσιν, ver. 5. Ax had these privileges, as all of you have their counterparts under the Gospel: but most of them failed from rebellion and unbelief. ὑπὸ τὴν ved. ἦσαν] The pillar of cloud, the abode of the divine Presence, went before them, and was to them a defence: hence it is sometimes treated of as covering the camp, e. g. Ps. civ. 39, διεπέτασε νεφέλην εἰς σκέπημ αὐτοῖς : and thus they would be under it. So also Wisd. x. 17, xix. 7,— ἡ τὴν παρεμβολὴν σκιάζυυσα νεφέλη. See Exod. xiii. 21, xiv. 20. 2.] εἰς τ. Movo. ἐβαπτ., received baptism (lit. baptized themselves: middle, not passive, see var. read.) to Moses; entered by the act of such immersion into a solemn cove- nant with God, and became His chureh under the law as given by Moses, God’s servant,—just as we Christians by our baptism are bound in a solemn covenant with God, and enter His Church under the Gospel as brought in by Christ, God’s eternal Son; see Heb. iii. 5, 6. Others (Syr., Beza) explain it ‘per Mosen,’ or (Calv., al.) ‘auspiciis Mosis,’ which εἰς will not bear,—not to mention that the formula βαπτίζω eis was already fixed in meaning, see reff. ἐν τῇ ν. Kal ἐν τῇ θ.1] The cloud and the sea were both aqueous; and this point of comparison being obtained, serves the Apostle to indi- cate the outward symbols of their initia- tion into the church under the govern- ment of Moses as the servant of God, and to complete the analogy with our baptism. The allegory is obviously not to be pressed minutely: for neither did they enter the cloud, nor were they wetted by the waters of the sea; but they passed under both, as the baptized passes under the water, and it was said of them, Exod. xiv. 31, “Then the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and his servant Moses.” To understand, as Olsh., the sea and cloud, of water and the Spirit respec- tively, is certainly carrying the allegory too far : not to mention that thus the baptisin by the Spirit would precede that by water. 3.] They had what answered to the one Christian sacrament, Baptism: now the Apostle shews that they were not without a 1—4, ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. 553 πάντες TO αὐτὸ “ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον ἃ πόμα" ἔπινον γὰρ d Heb. ix. 10 only. Ps. ci. 9 only. Dan. i. 16 Theod. Ezek. xxxvii. 11, a lal / ἐκ ° πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ" ἦν ὁ e = Matt. xxvi. 26, xiii. 87. John xy.1. Gen. xli. 26,27. Exod. xii. 11. 4, om avto A 46 eth Orig,{(ins,-int,) Chr, ]. rec πόμα bef πνευματικὸν emov (to conform with the πτύων with DEKL rel latt syrr [copt goth arm] Orig,-int, Dial, Chr, Thdrt [Damasc] Iren-int, [Aug,]: txt ΑΒΟΡΝ 17. 137 Orig,!-int, Did, Euthal-ms Mcion- in- |Epiph, Jer Cas [π|2] 137 Orig, [14,7 : ἐπιαν 1)}). rec δε bef πετρα (not observing the emphasis), with ACD2KLP rel Mcion[-e,] Orig, Kus, Chr [atic Did, Cyr, omg the 4 ἣ preceding, F, symbolic correspondence to the other, the Lord’s Supper. The two elements in this Christian sacrament were anticipated in their case by the manna and the miraculous stream from the rock: these elements, in their case, as well as ours, symbolizing THE Bopy anp Bioop oF CuRist. The whole passage is a standing testimony, inciden- tally, but most providentially, given by the great Apostle to the zmportance of the Christian sacraments, as necessary to membership of Christ, and not mere signs or remembrances : and an inspired protest against those who, whether as individuals or sects, would lower their dignity, or deny their necessity. βρῶμα πνευματικὸν «.T.A. |] The manna is thus called, from its ᾿ being no mere physical production, but miraculously given by God—the work of His Spirit. Thus Isaac is called, Gal. iv. 29,6 κατὰ πνεῦμα γεννηθείς, in opposition to Ishmael, 6 κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθείς. Jose- phus calls the manna θεῖον βρῶμα καὶ παρά- dofov, Antt. iii. 1. 6: and in Ps. Ixxvii. 24, it is said ἄρτον οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν avrois. We can scarcely avoid recognizing in these words a tacit reference to our Lord’s dis- course, or at all events to the substance of it,—John vi. 31—58. ‘‘ For the sense of πνευματικός, as ‘typical,’ ‘seen in the light of the spirit,’ cf. Rev. xi. 8, ἥτις καλεῖ- ται πνευματικῶς Σόδομα. Stanley. 4.] It is hardly possible here, without doing violence to the words and construction, to deny that the Apostle has adopted the tradition current among the.Jews, that the rock followed the Israelites in their jour- neyings, and gave forth water all the way. Thus Rabbi Solomon on Num. xx. 2: “ Per omnes quadraginta annos erat iis puteus ” (Lightf.): and Schéttgen cites from the Bammidbar Rabba, ‘Quomodo compa- ratus fuit ille puteus (de quo Num. xxi. 16)? Resp. Fuit sicut petra. sicut alveus apum, et globosus, et volutavit se, et ivit cum ipsis in itineribus ipsorum. Cum vexilla castra ponerent, et tabernaculum staret, illa petra venit, et consedit in atrio tentorii. Tunc venerunt Principes, et juxta illum steterunt, dicentes, ‘ Ascende, putee, ~ See ἄς. (Num. xxi. 17) et ascendit.” The other testimonies in Schottgen- juthal-ms Damasc] Thdrt: txt BD! Orig, Eusg. ἄπονος. δε, only ways of escaping this inference are, (1) by setting aside the natural sense alto- gether, as Chrys. (οὐ yap 7 τῆς πέτρας φύσις τὸ ὕδωρ Nohlet,.... ἄλλ᾽ ἑτέρα Tis πέτρα πνευματικὴ τὸ πᾶν εἰργάζετο, τουτέστιν ὃ χριστός, ὃ παρὼν αὐτοῖς πανταχοῦ, καὶ πάντα θαυματουργῶν" διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο εἶπεν, ἀκολουθούσης. p- 203), Theophyl.,—or (2) by taking πέτρα = τὸ ἐκ τῆς πέτρας ὕδωρ, as Erasm., Beza, Grot., Estius, Lightf. —and so Calvin, who says: ‘ Quomodo, inquiunt, rupes que suo loco fixa stetit, vomitata esset Israelitas? Quasi vero non palam sit sub petree voce notari aque fluxum, qui nunquam populum deseruit.” But against both of these we have the plain assertion, representing matter of physical fact, ἔπινον ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, they drank from a (or, after ἃ preposition, the) [spiritual, or | miraculous rock which followed them: and 1 cannot consent to depart from what appears to me the only admissible sense of these words. How extensively the traditionary reliques of unrecorded Jewish history were adopted by apostolic men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apology of Stephen may bear witness. ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὃ χριστός) But (distinction between what they saw in the rock and what we see in it: they drank from it and knew not its dignity: but the Rock was Christ. In these words there appear: to be three allusions: (1) to the ideas of the Jews themselves : so the Targum on Isa. xvi. 1: “Afferent dona Messi Israelitarum, qui robustus erit, propterea quod in deserto fuit RUPES ECCLESIA ZIONIS:” so also in Wisd. x. li. ff., the σοφία θεοῦ (see note on John i. 1) is said to have been present in Moses, to have led them through the wilderness, &c. That the Mrssrau, the ANGEL OF THE COVENANT, was present with the church of the Fathers, and that His upholding power was manifested in miraculous interferences for their welfare, was a truth acknowledged no less by the Jew than by the Christian. (2) To the Srequent use of this appellation, A Rock, for the God of Israel. See, tnter alia, Deut. xxxii. 4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37; 1 Sam. i. 2; 2 Sam. xxii. 2, and passim ; xxiii. 3, 5 54 , ? Ψ φ fMatt.iii7 χρίστος᾽ ὅ ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἴ Ι ΜΚΟΙ͂,. ἐς Σ θ : 2 Cor. xii. 10. (2 Thess, 1. KNOG EV oO εος, 12.) Jer. xiv. < ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. κατεστρώθησαν X. ἐν ὃ τοῖς ὃ πλείοσιν αὐτῶν £ nvdd- γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. 6 “ δὲ i / ς -“ k ’ Aa ] ᾿] Ν x 3 12 TAUTG O€ 'τύποι ἡμῶν “ ἐγενηθησαν, ‘ELS TO μὴ εἰναι g ch. ix. 19 con m2 θ \ a θὰ ᾽ a n: bv et , ἡμᾶς ᾿ ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι " ἐπεθύμησαν. 7 ΑΝ ‘ > / / - ms 7 μηδὲ 9 εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν, ὥςπερ — Rom. v. k plur., ver. 11 reff., but see note. 141. 34 (only 3). n absol., Rom. vi. 7 reff. 1 Rom. iv. 11 reff. m here only. Num. xi. och. v. 10, 11 reff. 5. (ηυδοκησεν, so ABIC Clem, Mcion-e, Chr, [ Euthal-ms }.) 7. εἰδωλολατρας γινεσθαι Fc k 3. 116-22 καθως ins ka Ὁ} -5 1} Syr. arm, éffici aut efficiamini G-lat. aft ins εἰ bef avtwy A [vulg D-lat (not Iren-int) ]. rec (for wsmep) ws, with CD!KP ἃ Καὶ Mcion-e, [Kuthal-ms]: καθως 17 Mcion-e,: txt ΑΒ ΒΝ rel Chr, Thdrt Damase Thl.—om καθως tives autwy wstep F. &c.; Psalms passim, and especially Ixxviii. 20, compared with ver. 35: see also Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet.ii.8. Hence it became more natural to apply the term directly to Christ, as the ever-present God of Israel. (3) To the sacramental import of the water which flowed from the rock, which is the point here immediately in the Apostle’s mind. As well in sacramental import as in up- holding physical agency, that rock was Christ. The miraculous (spiritual) food was (sacramentally) the flesh of Christ: the miraculous (spiritual) drink was the blood of Christ: so that the Jews’ miracu- lous supplies of food and drink were sacra- mentally significant of the Body and Blood of Christ, in kind analogous to the two great parts of the Christian Supper of the Lord. In the contents pretixed to the chapters in the E. V., we read as the import of these verses, “ Te sacraments of the Jews are types of ours,” which though perhaps correctly meant, is liable to be erroneously understood ; inasmuch as no sacramental ordinance can be a type of another, but all alike, though in different degrees of approximation, and by different representations, types of H1M, who is the fountain of all grace. The difference be- tween their case and ours, is generally, that they were unconscious of the sacra- mental import, whereas we are conscious of it: “they knew not that I healed them,” Hos. xi. 3: and in this particular case, that Christ has come to us “not by water only, but by water and blood,” 1 John v. 6: His Dearu having invested our sacra- mental ordinance with another and more deeply significant character. To enter more minutely into the import of the words, ‘the rock was Christ,’ would be waste of time and labour. The above reasons abundantly justify the assertion, without either pressing the verb ἦν beyond its ordinary acceptation, or presuming to fix on the Apostle a definiteness of meaning which his argument does not require. See in Meyer’s note an example of the proceeding which I blame. 5. | How- beit with the more part of them (in fact the exceptions were Joshua and Caleb only) God was not well pleased. κατεστρ. yap ...] The very words of the LXX, see ref. 6.] Now (δέ transitional; the coutrast being, between the events them- selves, and their application to us) these things happened as figures (not ‘ types’ as we now use the word, meaning by type and antitype, the material representation, and the ultimate spiritual reality,—but Sigures, as one imperfect ceremonial polity may figure forth a higher spiritual polity, but still this latter may not itself be the ultimate antitype) of us (the spiritual Israel as distinguished from the literal),— in order that we might not be (God’s purpose in the τύποι : of course an ulterior purpose, for they had their own immediate purpose as regards the literal Israel) lusters [ the use of the substantive forcibly depicts the habit] after evil things (gene- rvally: no special reference yet to the Corinthian feasters, as Grot. supposes. So Theophyl. rightly: καθολικῶς περὶ πάσης κακίας λέγει, ἐπειδὴ καὶ πᾶσα κακία ἐξ ἐπιθυμίας. εἶτα καὶ κατ᾽ εἶδος τίθησι τὰς κακίας. Similarly Chrys.) as they also (καί, i.e. supposing us to be like them) lusted. The construction (ταῦτα. .. ἐγενήθησαν) may be a verb substantive attracted into the plur. (or sing.) by the predicate,—one often found: so Herod. i. 93, ἡ μὲν meplodos,..... εἰσὶ στάδιοι ἕξ: and il. 15, αἱ Θῆβαι Αἴγυπτος ἐκαλέετο : so in Latin, Ter. Andr. iii. 3. 28, ‘ Aman- tium ire amoris integratio est:’ see many other examples in Kiihner, ὃ 429: or, which is perhaps better, as in ver. 11, where see note. The rendering, ‘ Now in these things they were figures of us’ (I know not by whom suggested, but I find it in Dr. Peile’s notes on the Epistles), is inconsistent both with the arrangement of the words,—in which ταῦτα has the primary emphasis,—and with ἐγενήθησαν, which should be ἦσαν. 7: Now, the special instances of warning follow, coupled to the general by μηδέ in this ὅ---9. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 555 γέγραπται Ῥ᾽ ὠκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν, καὶ 4 ἀν- P Exov. xxxii. 3 6 - abs., Acts , / \ / , o éotnoay " παίζειν. 8 μηδὲ ὃ πορνεύωμεν, καθώς τινες ad- Vi! A ’ , \ ͵ A 7 -“ Acts ix. 6 τῶν " ἐπόρνευσαν καὶ ἔπεσαν [ἐν] μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ εἰκοσιτρεῖς * al. fr. 7 ᾿ 3 ᾿ ᾿ ae : r here only. χιλιάδες. 9 μηδὲ ' ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν κύριον, καθώς τινες 1. zie ἶ 2 Kings vi. 5 | Chron. Jer. xxxviii.(xxxi.) 4. Hom. Od. θ. 251. sch. vi. 18 reff. Num. xxv. 1—6. t Luke iy. 12 || Mt. (from Deut. vi. 16). x. 25 (John viii. 4] only. Ps. Ixxvii. 18. (πειν, so B1(Tischdf) D!F: my δὲ.) aveotn F[-gr]. 8. exmopvevwuey DIF, εξεπυρνευσαν (see LXX) D!F 67! Chr,[txt,]. (επε- σαν, so ABCD! FPN 1 m 17 Chr-ms, Thdrt Damasc.) om ev BD!FN!? Tren[-int, j. 9. ἐεκπειρασωμεν F [-Couey KP: πειραζωμεν 17 Epiph,(txt,) J. rec (for κυριον) χριστον (see note), with DF KL rel latt syrr copt-wilk sah Thdrt Mcion,(Epiph says: ὁ δὲ Μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦ κύριον χριστὸν ἐποίησεν) Chr; Ec ΤῊ] Iren-int, (citing “Seniores”) Ambr Ambrst Aug, Pel: θεον A 2 [Euthal-ms]: txt ΒΟΡΝ 17 syr-mg copt-ms eth arm [Syn-ep-ant] Epiph, Chr, Thdrt Damasc, Sedul Cassiod, rec aft καθὼς ins και, with D3[-gr] KL rel Syr Chr, Thdrt: om ABCD'FPX a τὰ ἢ 17 [vulg syr coptt arm Syn-ep-ant Chr; Euthal-ms Damasc,] Iren-int, [Ambrst']. negative sentence, as so often by καί in an affirmative one. Notice, that all four of these were brought about by the ἐπιθυμεῖν κακῶν, not distinct from it. This first instance is singularly appropriate. The Israelites are recorded to have sat down and eaten and drunken at the idol feast of the golden calf in Horeb: the very temptation to which the Corinthians were too apt to yield. And as the Israelites were actually idolaters, doing this as an act of worship to the image: so the Co- rinthians were in danger of becoming such, and the Apostle therefore puts the case in the strongest way, neither be (become) ye idolaters. παίζειν, pry, ‘ choreas agere,’ ‘saltare accinentibus tympanis vel cantoribus :’ see reff., where the same word (or its cognate pmiv) occurs in the Heb. The dance was an accompaniment of the idol feast : see Hor. ii. 12. 19: ‘ Quam nec ferre pedem dedecuit choris.... sacro Diane celebris die.’ 8.] Another prominent point in the sins of the Corin- thian church. εἰκοσιτρεῖς χ.] The number was twenty-four thousand, Num. xxv. 9, and is probably set down here from memory. The subtilties of Commentators in order to escape the. inference, are dis- creditable alike to themselves and the cause of sacred Truth. Of the principal ancient Commentators, Chrysostom and Theophyl. do not notice the discrepancy : (Ecum. notices it, and says that some ancient copies εἰκοσιτέσσαρας ἔθεσαν here (so m tol syr-txt arm), but passes it with- out comment. Although the sin of Baal-peor was strictly speaking idolatry, yet the form which it exhibited was that of fornication, as incident to idolatrous feasting, see Num. xxv. 1,2. Thus it be- comes even more directly applicable to the case of the Corinthians. 9.] ἐκπειρ. —tempt beyond endurance, ‘ tempt tho- roughly.’ Similarly ἐξαρνεῖσθαι, ‘to per- sist in denying,’ al., as Suidas, 7 yap é πρόθεσις, ἐπίτασιν δηλοῖ. See Musgr. on Eurip. Iph. Taur. 249, and cf. ἐκπληρόω, Acts xiii. 32. So also in Latin, ‘oro’ and ‘exoro,’ &e. τὸν κύριον) There may be two views taken of the internal evidence’ concerning the reading here. On the one hand it may be said that χριστόν being the original reading, it was variously altered to κύριον or θεόν by those who found a difficulty in supposing that the Jews of old tempted Christ, or even by those who wished to obliterate this asser- tion of His pre-existence: and so De Wette, al. On the other it may be said, that κύριον being the original, it was variously explained in the margin χριστόν and θεόν, as is often the case: and so Meyer. On comparing these, it seems to me that the latter alternative is the more probable. The inference that tives αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν requires τὸν χριστόν as an ob- ject, is not a necessary one, and hardly likely to have produced the alteration, closely connected as τ. yp. is with the verb in the first person. I have therefore with Meyer adopted the reading κύριον. The tempting of the Lord was,—as on the other oceasions alluded to Num. xiv. 22, where it. is said that they tempted God ten times,— the daring Him, in trying His patience by rebellious conduct and sin. Ct. the similar use of πειράζω Acts v. 9; xv. 10. And he warns the Corinthians, that they should not in like manner provoke God by their sins and their partaking with idols. Chrys., Theophyl., and (ἔς, understand the temp- tation of God to be the seeking for signs: Theodoret, to be ἐμ danger arising from those who spoke with different tongues, ἐπείραζον δὲ κ. of ταῖς διαφόροις κεχρη- μένοι γλώτταις, κατὰ φιλοτιμίαν μᾶλλον ἢ. χρείαν ταύτας ἐπ᾽, ἐκκλησίας mpospepovTese 556 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTYS A. > Β b] A u ’ ’ \ ἊΨ \ “ Vv vv , / u=Actsv.9. αὐτῶν "ἐπείρασαν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλοντο. ΧΡ, ἀπε; Ἢ , 7 ἥν; νἷα, , ui-9. Exov. 10 μηδὲ Weyoyyutete, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν “ ἐγόγγυσαν καὶ v Mark xvi. 18. 9 ΄ πω ὡς a x? 6 a 1] a δὲ , Luke x. i9al, ἀπώλοντο UTO τοῦ ~ ὁλοθρευτοῦ. ταῦτα δὲ [πάντα] NUM. XXi1. 0. γι ’ 7 , \ Υ τυπικῶς Φ συνέβαινον ἐκείνοις, ἐγράφη δὲ ὃ πρὸς ὃ > w here bis. Matt. xx. 11. iFOY- Luke v. 30. θ , ς aA 5 ἃ Ἁ , A ς a d 4 John vi. 41, eo LAV ἡμῶν, εἰς ους Ta τέλη των αἰώνων “ ΚατΤΉήνΤΉηκεν. ee bch = 12 o c e 5 an re , g Br , \ f ͵ only. Exop. 1% pals. ἄθεον, ἀν μὰς σα 0 οκων * éoTaval, ETETM μὴ * πεσῇ. (Stayoy. B). Nem. xiv. 29. x here onlyt. (-evewv, Heo. xi. 28, from Exod. xii. 23. -ευσις, Josh. xvii. 13 A.) y here only +. z Acts ili. 10 reff. plur., ver.6. Luke xxiv. 11. John xix. 31. Jamesii.19. Rev. i. 19. iii. 2. Ps. exlv. 10. a = ch. vii. 35 reff. b Eph. vi. 4. Tit. iii. 10 only+. Judith viii. 27 (23) Ald. compl. (-τησις, ABN). Wisd. xvi. 6 only. (-θετεῖν, Acts xx. 31.) c here only. see Matt. xiii. 39. xxviii. 20. Heb. ix. 26. d Acts xxvi. 7 reff. e ch. iii. i8 reff. f Rom. xiv. 4 (reff.). g = Acts xiii. 40 reff. om autwy &! [αὐτὸν L Syn-ep-ant]. εξεπειρασαν CD1FPN a m 17 [Syn-ep-ant Euthal-ms Damase, (txt,) ]. απωλλυντο BR [Cyr,-p]. (A is doubtful.) 10. for γογγυζετε, γογγυζωμεν D F-gr δὲ 17 copt arm Orig,[-c] Chr,(txtn1.) Aug). rec aft καθως ins και, with KL rel Chr[y1.(but mss vary) }: on ΒΟ ΕΝ ad m 17 latt syrr coptt [arm] Orig[-c,-int,] Eus [Bas, Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc, } lren-int,.— καθαπερ BI’X 93 Orig[-c, Bas, ]. απωλλυντο A. ολεθρευτου D!: ολεθρου F-gr. 11. om παντα (as ver 6) AB 17 sah Mcion-e,-t, Orig,[-int,] Dial, Hip, Cyr-jer, Cyr[-p, Bas, Chr, Iren-int-2-mss,] Pac,: ins CKLP rel [vulg D-lat syrr copt arm Chr, Euthal-ms Damasc} Thdrt, [Ἢ] Ge [Orig-int; ] Iren-int, Jer, and, but παντα δε ταυτα, D[-gr} FX ἃ eth Orig,{-int,] Chr, Iren-int-ms, Aug). rec τύποι (as ver 6), with DFL rel syr-txt coptt [Dial, Nyss, Chr,] Thdrt,(h. 1. expressly : avr: του ws τύποι, and elsw expl tavta τυπικως εκεινοις gvveBn): txt ABCKPR d17. 47! syr-mg Mcion-e, Orig, Hip, Eus, Mac, Cyr-jer, Chr, Cyrsepe[-p: i figura latt Iren-int-from- Sen, Orig-int, Ambrst Augatic: figuraliter Orig-ints }. συνεβαινεν (see note) BCKPR d 17. 47 Mcion-e, Orig, Dial, Hip, Cyr-jer,(eyevero,) Chr-2-mss, [ Bas, Nyss, Cyr, Euthal-ms]: txt ADFL rel Dial, Chr, Thdrt, [Damasc}. rec κατηντησεν (alteration of the perf into the aor, so common with [ Epiph, ]. for προς, εἰς δὲ! the copyists), with ACD3KL rel Orthod Orig, Dial, Epiph, Chr, [Cyr-ms,-p] Thdrt, «σαν P Hip, [Damase]: txt BD!FX Hip, Orig,[-c,] Bas, Cyrs[-p Euthal-ms]. ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων, by the (well- known) serpents. The art. is so often omitted after a preposition, that wherever it is expressed, we may be sure there was a reason for it. 10.1 γογγύζετε has been by Estius, Grot., al., and De Wette, understood of murmuring against their teachers, as the Israelites against Moses and Aaron, Num. xiv. 2; xvi. 41. But not to mention that this was in fact mur- muring against God, such a reference would require something more specific than the mere word γογγύζετε. The warning is substantially the same as the last, but regards more the spirit, and its index the tongue. Theophyl.: αἰνίττεται δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ διὰ τούτου, ὅτι ἐν τοῖς πει- ρασμοῖς οὐκ ἔφερον γενναίως, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγόγ- γυῶν λέγοντες Πότε ἥξει τὰ ἀγαθά, καὶ ἕως πότε αἱ κακώσεις ; similarly Chrys. The destruction referred to must be that related Num. xvi. 41 ff. when the pesti- lence (which though it is not so specified there, was administered on another occa- sion by a destroying angel, 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17, see ulso Exod. xii. 23) took off 14,700 of the people. The punishment of the unbelieving congregation in Num. xiv., to which this is commonly referred, does not seem to answer to the expression ἀπώλοντο ὑπὸ τ. ὀλοθρευτοῦ, nor to the τινες, seeing that all except Joshua and Caleb were involved in it. a2. | τυπικῶς, see var. readd., by way of figure. Meyer cites from the Rabbis, ‘Quidquid evenit patribus, signum filiis.’ - The plural συνέβαινον expresses the plurality of events separately happening : the singular ἐγράφη, their union in the common record of Scripture. Similarly 2 Pet. iii. 10, στοιχεῖα... λυθήσονται.... τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακαήσεται. See reff. and Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 58. 8. ἃ. δέ con- veys a slight opposition to συνέβαινον ἐκεί- vols. τὰ τέλη τ. αἰών. = ἡ συν- τέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος of rett. Matt., and τὸ ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων of Heb. i. 1, where see note: the ends of the ages of this world’s lifetime. So Chrys.: οὐδὲν ἄλλο λέγει ἢ ὅτι ἐφέστηκε λοιπὸν Td δι- καστήριον τὸ φοβερόν. The form vov- θεσία belongs to later Greek. The classi- cal word is νουθέτησις or νουθετία : see Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 512. κατήντ.] have reached. The ages are treated as occupying space, and their extent as just coincident with our own time. See a similar figure in ch. xiv. 36. 12. ] ἑστάναι, viz. in his place as a member of Christ’s church, to be recognized by him at His coming for one of His. ‘To such an one the exampie of the Israelites is a warning to take heed that he fall not, as they did from their place in God’s church. 10—16. a - \ 13.) πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ‘eihypev εἰ μὴ ] XN δὲ e θ , ἃ > IAA, ¢ a m 67 n - \ πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς ™ πειρασθῆναι " ὑπὲρ ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 557 ki θ f . αν βρώπινος h Luke xxii. 28. Acts xx. 19 al. iv. 34. = Luke v. 26. Deut. ἃ Ἃς / \ an aA \ Ἁ / i ὃ δύνασθε, ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ " πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ° ἔκ- τι 1δ' Exod. a τ a , 2 je Belo βασιν Ῥ τοῦ δύνασθαι 4 ὑπενεγκεῖν. 15 τ διόπερ, " ἀγαπητοί κ Acts xvii, 25 re , \ n ? / μου, * φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς “ εἰδωλολατρείας. τ Wee "1 -- ch. i. 9 τε ως “ φρονί- m ch. vii. ὃ reff, n = ch. iv. 6. 2 , / ¢ A “ 1@ ΣᾺ 7 a re - κρίνατε ὑμεῖς ὃ φημι. TO ποτήριον T Cor. xii. 6. pols λέγω p { 5 ae 4 i OP ble o Heb. xiii. 7 only+. Wisd. ii. 17. viii. 8. xi. l4 only. ἢ ἐκβ. εκ τ. πολεμουν, Polyb. iii. 7. 2. p Matt. xiii. 3. Acts iii. 2. xviii. 10. xxvi. 18. Rom. xi. 8,10. Ps. cxlix. 7, 9. q 2 Tim. iii. 1}. 1 Pet. ii. 19 only. Jobii. 10. Ps. liv. 12. Prov. vi. 33. r ch. viii. 13 (xiv. 13 v. r.) only. tch. vi. 18 reff. v = Acts xvii. 22. s Acts xv. 20 reff. ver. 7.) xiv.,17. 13. for οὐκ etAndev, ov kataAaByn F; non apprehendat latt. DF. πειρασθηναι bet vuas Β [τη]. υπενεγκειν Β' Ααρΐ «(ὑχῦ Jatiq). 2 Cor. vi. 13. x attr., Matt. xxi. 42 (from Ps. cxvii. 22) al. uGal. ν. 20, Col. iii.5. 1 Pet.iv.3only+. (-rpys, w Matt. vii. 24. chriv. 10 al. Prov. for εασει, αφησει ins ov bef δυνασθε F 123? D-lat, adding rec ins vuas bef υπενεγκειν, with Κι επεν.] 8% rel Thdrt, Damasc Thl-ed Cc: aft, D%[but erased]: om ABCDIFLPR?! n 17. 47 farm Orig, ] Mac, Bas, Chr-comm,-and-2-inss, Cyrsepe Thdrt, Thl-mss. 15. aft Ppovimos ins υμιν D α (coptt). D'[-gr]. υμας N}(txt N-corr?), 13.] There are two ways of understanding the former part of this verse. Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Est., Bengel, Olsh., De Wette, al., take it as a continuation, and urging of the warning of the verse pre- ceding, by the consideration that no temptation had yet befallen them but such as was ἀνθρώπινος, ‘within the power of human endurance : but ‘ major tentatio imminet,’ Beng. :—while Calvin, al., and Meyer regard it as a consolation, tending to shew them that βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ is within the limits of their power, seeing that their temptation to sin was nothing extraordinary or unheard of, but only ‘according to man ;’ and they might trust to God’s loving care, that no temptation should ever befall them which should sur- pass their power to resist. This latter seems to me beyond doubt the correct view. For (1) in the parallel which they bring for the former sense, Heb. xii. 4, οὔπω is distinctly expressed,—and would have been here also, had it been intended. Besides, in that case, οὔπω, as having the primary emphasis, would have been pre- Jixed, as in Heb. xii. 4: οὔπω πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς εἴληφεν .... Then again (2) this restricts the sense of πειρασμός to persecu- tion, which it here does not mean, but solicitation to sin, in accordance with the whole context. εἴληφεν ---Πδ5 taken you, not ἔλαβεν, ‘took you,’ shews that the temptation was still soliciting them. ἀνθρώπινος) not, as Piscator, al., and Olsh., originating with man, as opposed to other temptations originating with the devil, or even with God’s Providence: but, as Chrys.: fupetpos,—opposed to ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε, adapted to man. πιστός} He has entered into a covenant with you b calling you: if He suffered temptation beyond your power to overcome you, He would be violating that covenant. Com- for κρινατε vets o φημι, κρινετε ουν φημι pare 1 Thess. v. 24, πιστὸς 6 καλῶν ὑμᾶς, ds Kal ποιήσει. ὅς = ὅτι οὗτος. ποιήσει. .. καὶ τὴν ἔκβ.] Then God makes the temptation too: arranges it in His Providence, and in His mercy will ever set open a door for escape. τὴν ἔκβ. the [way to] escape, i.e. which belongs to the particular temptation: τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ, Theophyl. τοῦ δύν.} in order that you may be able to bear (it): obs., not, ‘will remove the temptation τ᾿ but, ‘will make an escape simultaneously with the temptation, to encourage you to bear up against it.’ 14.) Conclusion from the above warning examples: IDOLATRY IS BY ALL MEANS TO BE SHUNNED; not tampered with, but fled from. φεύγετε ἀπό ( ᾿ a / a b Ὡ yGalii,u. 7 εὐλογίας Ὁ 2 εὐλογούμεν, οὐχὶ * κοινωνία του " αίματος James iii. 10. Rev. v. 12, 13. vii. 12. Gen. xxviii. 4. z Matt. xxvi. 26 i) Mk. Luke ix. 16. iv. 30. ch. . 1 Kings ix. 13. 14. 1 Pet.i.2. 1Johmi.7 al. e Rom. v. 15 reff. f Rom. xi. 32 reff. 16. for evAoyias, ευχαριστιας F 71. 80. 213 Syr. κοινωνιας N'(marked for correction by N-corr?). A b lal ᾽ . x \ v ἃ c a > \ a F τοῦ "χριστοῦ ἐστιν ; τον ἄρτον ὃν © KAwWMEV, OVXL * κοί- n 7 an a ev Yi νωνία τοῦ ἃ σώματος τοῦ 4 χριστοῦ ἐστιν ; 17 ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ὅ ἃ a Ὕ Je | ae δι \ f ΄ ? τοῖν, ἕν σώμα ὃ οἱ " πολλοὶ ἐσμεν" οι yap πάντες EK τοῦ ἐνὸς a 2 σον. vi. 14 reff. e Acts ii. 46 reff. Ὁ (ch. xi. 25,27.) Eph. ii. 13. Heb. ix. (12) d Rom. vii. 4. (ch. xi. 24, 27, 29.) ἡυλογουμεν D'[-gr]. Ist eorw bef τ. am. τ. xp. (transposn to avoid the harshness of ἐστιν at the end) ABP Syr coptt [arm(Tischdf) } Cyr,[-p] Aug,: txt CDFKLX rel latt syr goth Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damase] Ambrst. 2nd εστιν bef τ. σωμ. τ. xp. A Syr copt Cyr, Aug, (see above): om sah: txt BCDFKLPNX rel [latt syr goth Chr, Euthal-ms Cyr-p, Thdrt Damase}. for 2nd χρίιστου, κυριου D!F 21 latt goth (Dial,) Thdrt Ambrst Aug, (goth Thdrt Ambrst syr- mg κυρίου before): αὐτου n. 17. aft aprov ins και Tov (evos) ποτηριου DF vulg-sixt(with demid harl tol, not aw) [goth] Ambrst Pel. (om evos D[-gr]}.) is a participation in Christ. The stress throughout to ver. 20, is on κοινωνία, and κοινωνοί. τὸ ποτήριον is the accus., by attr. corresponding to τὸν ἄρτον. τὸ π. τῆς EVA.| 1. 6. ὃ εὐλογοῦντες κατα- σκευάζομεν ((6.), as explained imme- diately by ὃ evAoyovuer,—over which we speak a blessing, the Christian form of the Jewish 7273 Dia, the cup in the Pass- over over which thanks were offered after the feast,—in blessing of which cup, our Lord instituted this part of the ordinance : see Lightfoot in loc.,and note on the history in Matt. xxvi. The rendering of Olsh., al., the cup which brings a blessing, is wrong, as being against this analogy. ὃ εὐλο- γοῦμεν) which we bless, i.e. consecrate with a prayer of thanksgiving: not, as Erasmus, Beza, ‘ quod cum gratiarum ac- tione sumimus’” (περὶ οὗ εὐχαριστοῦμεν). Observe, the first. person plural is the same throughout: the blessing of the cup, and the breaking of the bread, the acts of con- secration, were not the acts of the minister, as by any authority peculiar to himself, but only as the representative of the oi πάντες, the whole Christian congregation (and so even Estius, but evading the legi- timate inference). The figment of sacer- dotal consecration of the elements by trans- mitted power, is as alien from the apostolic writings as it is from the spirit of the Gospel. κοινωνία] the participation (i. 6. that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the Blood of Christ? The strong literal sense must here be held fast, as constituting the very kernei of the Apostle’s argument. The wine is the Blood, the bread is the Body, of Christ. (In what sense the Blood and the Body, does not belong to the present argument.) We receive into us, make by assimilation parts of ourselves, that wine, that bread: we become therefore, by participation of that Bread, one Bread, i.e. ONE Bopy: hence the close and literal participation in and with Christ. If we are to render this ἐστιν, represents or symbolizes, the argu- ment is made void. On the other hand it is painful to allude to, though necessary to reprobate, the caricature of this real union with Christ which is found in the gross materialism of transubstantiation. See further on ch. xi. 26, 27. ὃν κλῶμεν] probably already the δγεαζίηρ of the bread in the communion was part of the act of consecration, and done after the example of our Lord in its institution. See ch. xi. 24; Acts ii. 42, xx. 7, 11. For the rest, see ahove. 17.] Because we, the (assembled) many, are one bread (by the assimilation of that one bread partaken ; not ‘ one loaf’), one Body (by the κοινωνία of the Body of Christ, of which that bread is the vehicle); for the whole of us par- take of that one bread. Meyer and De Wette and many other Commentators take εἷς ἄρτος alone, ‘there is one bread ;’? and impugn the interpretation given above by saying that it is evidently not so, because the following clause uses ἄρτος in its literal sense. But it is for that very reason, that I adhere to the interpretation given. By partaking of that bread, we become, not figuratively but literally, one bread: it passes into the substance of our bodies, and there is in every one who partakes, a portion of himself which is that bread. The dread which was before, is now ἡμεῖς. But that loaf, broken and blessed, is the medium of κοινωνία of the Body of Christ ; we then, being that one bread, are one Body; for we all partake of that one bread. So that,there is no logical inver- sion, and no arguing (Meyer) from the effect to the cause. The argument is a very simple and direct one ;—the bread is the Body of Christ; we partake of the bread: therefore we partake of the Body of Christ. Of these propositions, the con- 17—19. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 559 ἄρτου ἐμετέχομεν. 18 " βλέπετε τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἱ κατὰ ' σάρκα" ὁ εἰν. ix. 10,12 » € 2 a! » / k \ na | 4 heh. i. 26. οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας, * κοινωνοὶ τοῦ | θυσιαστηρίου " Pri: ii 2 Tener 19 ΟΣ “ m “7 , Ὅς ay τ Noo i Rom. i. 3 reff. εἰσίν ; 19 τί οὖν φημι ; ὅτι ™ εἰδωλόθυτόν " τί ἐστιν, ἢ OTE κ Matt, xxii. ow. or. 1. Mu Pet. ve 1.) 1554: 29; τ = Acts v.36. ch. it. 7. 7.0 Heb. x71as- m ch. viii. 1 reff. 1 ch. ix. 13 bis. Rom. xi. 3 (from 3 Kings xix. 10) al. Gal. ii. 6. vi. 3,15. Demosth. 582. 27. 18. rec ovxt, with BD3K LPR? rel Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasc]: txt ACD!FPR! 17 Chr,. εσθοντες D!. 19. rec transp εἰδωλοθυτον and εἰδωλον, with KL rel syrr goth Chr, Thdrt [Damase]: ἰδωλοθυτον twice ΕἾ -οΥ ] ; but G-lat has over the 1st zdolis immolatum sit, and over the 2nd idolum aut idolothitum : εἰδωλοθυτον, omg from τι ἐστιν to τὲ ἐστιν, ΑΟἸΝῚ (omg τι also) Epiph,: εἰδωλον, omg the other clause by homeotel, 17.71: txt BC?DP X-corr! m vulg(and F-lat) coptt eth arm [Euthal-ms| Ambrst Aug, Pel Bede. (The veceived reading seems to have been adopted as the most natural order on the re- insertion of the omitted clause. For the remarks of Epiph and Aug, see Tischdf.) ἐστιν bef τι (twice) D![only 1st D!-gr] F latt. for ἡ ott, ovx ott DE spec] (Tert,) Ambrst Aug-mss,. (for lst ὅτι, ovx ot: [k] Chr[-4]-mss,. Ρ 1 1 1 clusion is implied in the form of a question in ver. 16: the minor stated in the latter clause of ver. 17; its connexion with the major producing the conclusion given in the former clause 67: .... ἐσμέν. The major itself, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου, is suppressed, as axiomatic. The above remarks shew also the untenableness of the rendering of Calv., Beza, Bengel, al.,— “ because there is one bread (antecedent), we being many are one body” (conse- quent): for this would parenthesize ver. 17, and take it altogether out of the argu- ment, giving it a sense which, as occurring here, would be vapid—“obiter hoc dicit, αὖ intelligant Corinthii, externa quoque professione colendam esse illam unitatem que nobis est cum Christo,” Calv. Meyer objects to rendering ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν, we partake of that one bread: saying rightly that μετέχω is always found with a gen. or an acc., never with ἐκ. He would render, for we all, by means of that one bread, partake (viz. in the one Body: so μετέχ. is absol. ver. 30). This is ex- ceedingly harsh, besides as it seems to me (see above) confusing the whole argument : and we may safely say would not have been thus expressed by the Apostle, leaving the most important words to be supplied from the context,—but would have been οἱ yap πάντες ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ ἄρτῳ τοῦ ἑνὸς σώματος μετέχομεν. The usage of ἐκ, too, would, though perhaps barely allow- able, be very harsh, especially when it is remembered that the ἄρτος is not (by the hypothesis) the ultimate, but only the me- diate object of participation. None of the examples given in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 230, which Meyer quotes for his sense of ἐκ, seem to justify it. They apply mostly to the subjective source, ἐκ mpo- voias, or the circumstances originating, ὡς ἐκ TovTwy,—not to the medial instru- ment, which it appears to me would re- quire διά. (In a subsequent edn. Mever seems to have slightly modified his view, rendering, for from the one bread we all receive a portion.) 18.] Another example of κοινωνία, from the Jewish feasts after sacrifice. τ. Iop. κατὰ σάρκα] (= τ. Ἰσρ. τὸν κατὰ σάρκα: so we have τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα, Eph. vi. 5), the actual material Israel, as distinguished from 6 Ἶσρ. κατὰ πνεῦμα, see Rom. 11. 29; Gal. iv. 29; and ὁ Ἴσρ. τοῦ θεοῦ, Gal. vi. 16. ot ἐσθ. τ. θυσ.7 viz. those parts of the sacrifices which were not offered; see on ch. viii. 1. The parts to be offered are specified, Levit. 111. 3; the practice of eat- ing the remainder of the meat sanctioned and regulated, ib. vii. 15—18. κοι- νωνοὶ τοῦ θυσ.] partakers with the altar (in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious con- nexion. The question has been raised, and with reason, why the Apostle did not say κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ Meyer answers,—be- cause the Jew was already in covenant with God,and the Apostle wished to express a closer connexion, brought about by the sacrifice in question:—De Wette,— because he was unwilling to ascribe so much to the mere act of sacrifice, see Heb. x. 1 ff. : and to this latter view I incline, because, as De W. remarks, θεοῦ would have suited the analogy better than θυσιαστηρίου, but Paul avoids it, and evidently is reluctant to use it. But to carry this view further, and suppose with Riickert that he would not concede to the Ἶσρ. κατὰ σάρκα any κοινωνία θεοῦ, is (Meyer) contradicted by Rom. ix. 4, 5. Still the inference lies open, to which our Saviour’s saying points, Matt. xxiii. 20, 21. The altar is Gon’s altar). 19, 20.] The inference from the preceding analogies would naturally be, that Paul was then representing the idols us being in reality what the heathen sup- 560 \ ἴω “4 καὶ ov θεῷ θύουσιν, vi. 16. 1 Thess. i. 9 al. Num. xxv. 2. absol., Acts xiv. 13. Exod. xxiii. 18. w. dat., Acts xiv. 18. q Devt. xxxii. 17. Paul, here (4 times) and 1 Tim. iv. 1 only. r ch. xi. 27. ; s = Rom. xi. 9. v Rom. x. 19 (from Deut. xxxii. 21). xi. 11, 14 only. ᾳ δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι. Ὁ 20. for αλλ οτι a, a δε Ὁ: αλλα α F[sed que] latt. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. Ps. Ixxvil. 20. X. ‘ t ο εἴδωλόν "ti ἐστιν; 39 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ Ρ θύουσιν 4 δαιμονίοις οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς * κοινωνοὺς τῶν 51] οὐ δύνασθε ' ποτήριον * κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον 4 δαιμονίων, οὐ δύνασθε " τραπέζης κυρίου ὃ μετέχειν καὶ * τραπέζης “' δαιμονίων. 539 " ἢ ἡ παρα- ἕηλοῦμεν τόν κύριον ; μὴ “ ἰσχυρότεροι αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν ; gospp. passim. Acts xvi. 18. James ii. 19. Rey. ix. 20. xvi. 14 only. t see Isa. Ixy. 1l. τ = thrx’.22. w ch. i. 20 reff. rec (for θυουσιν, twice) Over (occasioned by the insn of εθνη below), with KL rel Chr, Thdrt Damase: txt ABC DFPX m 17 Mcion-e,{ 1st ; om 2nd] Eus, [Euthal-ms(1st θυσουσιν) }. rec aft Ist θυ. ins τα εθνη, with ACKPR rel vulg(and F-lat) G-lat syrr coptt goth ath arm Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasc] Orig-int, Aug,: aft ov, L: om BD F[-gr] Mcion-e, Eus, Tert, Ambrst Aug,(expr,) Aug-cit(qui sacrificant). rec 2nd θυ. bef και ov θεω, with DFKL rel [syrr coptt goth Chr Thdrt Damase Augaic]: txt ABCPR m 17 [arm(Tischdf)] Eus, [Euthal-ms] Orig-int, Aug. for γινεσθαι, εἰναι I’, (omg των) D'5[and lat} F goth. posed them to be—and the eater of meats offered to them, as partaking with the idol. This objection he meets,—but with the introduction of a new fact to their con- sideration—that the things which the hea- then sacrifice, they sacrifice really to devils. 19.] τί οὖν φημι; What am I then assuming ? so Xen. Anab. i. 14. 4, τί οὖν κελεύω ποιῆσαι; ὅτι εἰδωλόθ. τί ἐστιν] that a thing sacrificed to an idol is any (real) thing (so sacrificed) ? (i.e. has any real existence as a thing sacrificed? The accentuation τι ἔστιν ; would come nearer to the sense of ch. villi. 4, ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ,--- ‘that there is any (such thing as an) offering to an idol?’ and in a matter so ambiguous it is impossible to decide between the two) or that an idol is any thing (real? e.g. that Jupiter ἐδ Jupiter in the sense of a living power) ? —(Not so :—this ellipsis of the negative, taken up by ἀλλά, is found in classical Greek: e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2, πῶς οὖν αὐτὸς ὧν τοιοῦτος ἄλλους ἂν ἀσεβεῖς 2. ἐποίησεν; ἄλλ᾽ ἔπαυσε μὲν τούτων πολλούς; ἀρετῆς ποιήσας ἐπιθυμεῖν, Ke. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 37.) But (I say) that the things which they (i.e. the Gentiles) sacrifice, they sacri- fice to devils, and not to God (δαιμ., not ‘false-gods, nor in the sense in which it is used in the mouth of idolaters them- selves, Acts xvii. 18, and Xen. Mem. i. 1. 1, deities (see Stanley’s note, in which this idea is ingeniously combined with the Christian sense given below),—but, as always in LXX and N. T. when used by worshippers of the true God, ‘ DEVILS,’ ‘evil spirits.’ The words are from Deut. (ref.), see also Ps. χον. 5 (Baruch iv. 7, θύσαντες δαιμονίοις x. ov θεῷ). Heathen- dom being under the dominion of Satan δαιμονιων bef Kowwvous (ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου), he and his angels are in fact the powers honoured and worshipped by the heathen, how- ever little they may be aware of it): but (the inference being suppressed ‘and ye therefore by partaking in their sacri- fices would be partakers with devils: but’) I would not have you become par- takers with devils (τῶν generic). 21.| Reason of the ov 0éX\w,—sententionsly expressed without “γάρ. ov δύνασθε applies of course to the real spiritual participation of the table of the Lord so as to profit by it: to moral possi- bility. The ποτήριον δαιμονίων is said as corresponding to the cup of which mention has been already made, not as Grot., al., and De Wette fancy, referring to the libation at an idol feast. τράπεζα is said by Pollux vi. 12 (Suicer) to be used in the sense of τὰ σιτία τὰ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν τραπεζῶν τιθέμενα. Com- pare the description in Herod. iii. 18, of the Ἡλίου tpdme(a,—Polyb. iv. 35. 4, ὥςτε περὶ τὸν βωμὸν k. Thy τράπεζαν τῆς θεοῦ κατασφαγῆναι τοὺς ᾿Εφόρους ἅπαντας, —and ref. Isa. From this passage pro- bably, the τράπεζα κυρίου became an ex- pression éurrent in all ages of the Christian Church: see Suicer in voc. 22.) Or are we provoking (is it our wish to pro- voke, that He may assert His power) the Lord (Christ) to jealousy (by dividing our participation between Him and devils) ?— see ref. Deut., which evidently is before the Apostle’s mind: — are we stronger than He (are we then such, that we can afford to defy His power to punish)? 23—XI. 1.] Now that he has fully handled the whole question of partaking in idol feasts, and prepared the way for specific directions as about a matter no longer to be supposed indifferent, he pro- e νασθε 20—27. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT®S A. 561 x ch. vi. 12 (reff.). y Acts ix. 31 reff ¢ y ᾽ ΄ ΄ 4 23 Lavra " ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ov πάντα * συμφέρει' πάντα > ΄ > “ Ν 4 Ν e n x ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ov πάντα Υ οἰκοδομεῖ. 2+ μηδεὶς 5 τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ¥ ASE \ \ A - an / z see Matt, xvi. δ ζητείτω, ἀλλὰ 5 τὸ ὃ τοῦ. ἑτέρου. 55 πᾶν TO ἐν “ μακέλ- © 23. a ver. 33. d ΄ 2 $ SS “ Ν , ch. xiii. 5. Aw 4arwrovpevoy ἐσθίετε μηδὲν “ ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν sh, x15. | f ‘5 96 g T a 7 \ e a \ oh 2 Phil. 11. 21. OvVVEL nol’ > τοῦ κυρίου yap 1) γὴ Kat TO πλήρωμα Neh. ii. 10 eer 27. , / a reff 30 εἰ ἐγὼ " χάριτι ἃ μετέχω, τί Y βλασφημοῦμαι © ὑπὲρ οὗ q Paul, here = > , ” A only. Matt. ἀγὼ * εὐχαριστῶ; 51} εἴτε οὖν ἐσθίετε εἴτε πίνετε εἴτε τὶ 46. Luke xiii.7. Acts iv. 36. vii. 26 only. Gen. iv. 6. r=. Gal. ii. 4. v..1, 13 al. s -. Job xix. 27 BN ΑἸὰ [Ὁ] t = Rom. vi. 17 reff. dat., Rom. iv, 19, see note. u ch. ix. 10, 12 reff. v = Rom. iii. 8 reff. w ellips., ch. vii. 1 al. x = Rom. xiv. 6. i. 8 al. absol., ch. xi. 24 reff. y so ch. iii. 22 reff. 28. om υμιν F latt goth Tert, Aug,[ins, ]. rec (for sepo08.) ειἰδωλοθυτον (see notes), with CDFKLP rel syr copt goth arm Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damase Tert, |: immolaticium D-lat F-lat [Ambrst] (in ver 19 simulacro immolatum D-lat, idolis émmolatum F-lat vulg [Aug,]): txt ABHN sah Eus (Clem) Orig [de saerificio Syr (victima idoli ver 19) }. om εκεινον τὸν μηνυσαντα Kat F. aft καὶ ins δια D Syr syr-w-ob. rec at end ins του yap κυριου ἡ yn Kat To TANpwua αὐτὴ» (re- etition from ver 26: see also on ver 31), with H?KL rel syr goth Chr, { Euthal-ms] hdrt Phot ΤῊ] @e: om ABCDFH!PN 17 latt Syr coptt 2th arm Damase Ambrst Aug, Pel Bede. ; 29. for ovx:, ov D! 17. epavtov H m: σεαυτου D!: tuam latt [(Syr) syr coptt Ambrst Aug]. for aAAns, απιστου F[-gr] D-lat G-lat goth Ambr Jer Sedul Primas (txt Ambrst Aug, Pel Bede). 30. rec aft εἰ ins δὲ (supplementary, but disturbing the sense), with (ic : om ABCD FKLPX rel [latt syrr coptt goth zth-pl(om vv. 29, 30 eth-rom) arm] Clem, Cyr, [Chr, Euthal-ms Damase Aug; |. cap. v.10.” On διὰ τ. cvvetd.,see above, ver. 25. 28.| Who is the person sup- posed to say this ? not, as Grot., al., think, the host, of whom tts could hardly be said, but it would stand ἐὰν δὲ ὑμῖν εἴπῃ : nor, as Chrys., Theophyl., al., and De Wette, —some heathen guest, by whom De W. imagines it said maliciously, or to put the Christian to the proof,—for his συνείδησις would hardly be so much taken into ac- count in the matter; but, as Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 399, and Meyer,—some weak Christian, wishing to warn his brother. ἱερόθωτον is apparently placed advisedly, to yepresent what would be said at a heathen’s table. De W. supposes it on this very account to be a correction: but surely this is giving a corrector credit for more fine- ness of discrimination than they ordinarily shew. Much more probable is it, that the unusual and apparently incorrect ἱερόθυτον should give place to the ordinary and more exact term. Sv ἐκ. τ. pyy....| On account of the man who informed you, and (καί specifying the particular point or points to which the more general preceding clause applies: as, τῶνδε εἵνεκα, καὶ γῆς ἱμέρῳ... καὶ μάλιστα τῷ χρηστηρίῳ πί- guvos ἐών, καὶ τίσασθαι θέλων... .. . - Herod.i.73. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i, 145) conscience: i.e. to spare the in- former being wounded in his conscience. 29. Explanation of the last διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν, as meaning not your own, but that of the informer. True to his inter- pretation (see above), De W. supposes τοῦ ἑτέρου not to refer to τὸν μηνύσαντα, but to ‘ your weak Christian brother ;’ but then how very harsh and clumsy are the various references to understood persons ;—and how simple, on the other interpretation, is the reference in each case of τὴν συν. to the subject of the clause. ἵνα τί γάρ] For why is my freedom judged by a conscience not mine own ?—i.e. ‘ Why should I be so treated (hazard by my actions such treatment) that the exercise of my Christian freedom, eating as I do and giving thanks, should become matter of condemnation to another, who conscien- tiously disapproves of it?’ If (no copula) I partake thankfully ([not, as E. V., ‘ by grace’| dat. of the manner, cf. Soph. Antig. 616, σοφίᾳ yap ἔκ του κλεινὸν ἔπος πέφανται,--- πὰ Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 101), why am I to be spoken ill of for that for which I give thanks? These words have been misunderstood. It has been generally supposed that the Apostle is impressing a duty, not to give occasion for the condemnation of their liberty by another’s conscience. But the ground on which he is kere arguing, is the unfitness, absurdity, injustice to oneself and the cause of God, ver. 31, of so acting as to be condemned for that in which a man not only allows himself, but for which he gives thanks to God. The sentiment is the same as in Rom. xiv. 16, μὴ βλασφημείσθω ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν. The emphasis is each time on ἐγώ. 31—XI.1.] General conclusion of this part of the Epistle, ΧΙ. 1—3. ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 563 ποιεῖτε, πάντα 5 εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ ποιεῖτε. 3% 5 ἀπρόςκοποι : Rom. iii. 7. / \¢ ~ na καὶ lovdaio γίνεσθε καὶ EAXnow καὶ τῇ " ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Bie trp dieu imax χά ΤΥ ἡ ὁ ζητῶ cou’ 355 καθὼς Kay ἄντα πᾶσιν ἃ ἀρέσκω, μὴ "“ ζητῶν ρ τ, ἡ. Eph, i. 6 al. a Acts xxiv. 16 Phil. i. 10 only +. P. Sir. xxxv. τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ ‘ σύμφορον, ἀλλὰ TO ὅ τῶν ὃ πολλῶν, ἵνα σω- (=) 2 ch. 1. 2 reff, 66 XI 1 h 7 ΄ θ θὰ > \ an Ι : ὦσιν. . μιμήται μου γινεσ €, KAUWS Kay@w χρίιστου. c Acts xx. 35 217K ὦ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι “πάντα μου * μέμνησθ } ἃ Rom. vii. 8 παιν μ a μ μεμνησῦε, Kat 4 Kor ] καθὼς ' παρέδωκα 5 οθέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς " εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ reff. h ch. iv. 16 reff. k —2Tim.i.4. Heb. xiii. 3. xv.3. 2Pet.ii. 21. Jude ὃ. xxxix. (xxxii.) 4. xli. (xxxiv.) 2 only. iii. 6, 14. x. 23f. o Col. ii. 1. 31. 1st ποιειτε bef τι D[-gr] F[-gr]. ver. 24. e a X ΄ ὑμῖν τὰς '' παραδόσεις ™ κατέχετε. fon vie 95 ec only +. Eccl, QO ii. 3Symm. g = Rom. v.15 i Luke xvi. 8. Rom. xv. 11. vv. 17, 22 only. w. ὅτι, Eccles. viii. 15. Prov. xxxi. (xxiv.) 7. m = Matt. xv. 2. } = Luke i. 2. Acts xvi. 4. ver.,23. ch. Gal. i. 14. 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6 al.f~ Jer. n = Luke viii. 15. ch. xv. 2. 1 Thess..v. 21. Heb om 2nd ποιειτε F [spee | Ambrst- at end add του yap κυριου ἡ yn τε (as in ver 28) (5. 32. rec γίνεσθε bef καὶ ιουδαιοις, with DKL[P]&* rel [Bas, Chr, Thdrt Damasc, Orig-int, ]: yiv. ἰουδ. te F[-gr: estote Jud@is vulg F-lat syrr coptt Hil, Ambrst |: txt ABCN! m 17 Orig, Did, Cyr[-p, Euthal-ms]. av marked for erasure ]. om tov F: αὐτου G[but 33. for παντα πασιν, πασιν Kata παντα [omnibus omnia] F [D-lat Orig-int, Tert, Cypr, Ambrst Augaiic]: πα σιν] παντα Di -gr goth]. rec συμφερον (more usual), with DFK LPN? rel Orig,[-c,] Petr, [ Bas, Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc]: txt ABCR!. om 2nd το F. CuapP. XI. 2. rec aft υμας ins adeAgoi(addition at beginning of a new section), with DFKL rel [latt syrr(add μου) goth eth-pl] Thdrt [Damase Ambrst]: om ABCPR. a coptt zth-rom arm Ath, Cyr-jer, Bas, Chr, [Ors, Euthal-ms] Thl-comm. P [Cyr-jer, j. om καὶ A! 0 57. πάντοτε ins πανταχου bef παρεδωκα F D-lat Ambrst. (in F, ubique is not written in the Latin column but inserted over the Greek word.) Ambrst. κατεχετε C eth Ath, Chry. 3. om Ist δὲ F(and G-lat, not F-lat) syr Ambrst. —enforced by the example of himself. 31.] This εἴτε οὖν. . . ., passing from the special to the general, is not with- out reference to the last verse, in which the hypothesis is, that the Christian and thankful act of the believer is marred by the condemnatory judgment of his weak brother. All such hindrances to God’s glory they are to avoid; and in all things, eating or drinking, or any other particular of conduct (τι, any thing, the stress being on 7rotette,—Whether ye eat or drink, or do any thing; not as E. V. whatever ye ἐο,---ὁτιοῦν), the glory of God is to be the aim, self-regard being set aside: and so,— 82.] all offence is to be avoided (it being understood that this refers to ἀδιάφορα, for in other things, both Jews and Greeks must be offended, see ch. i. 23), whether to Jews or Heathens (both these out of the Church), or to the Church of God (their own brethren). 33. | His own course of conduct :—As I in all things (accus. of that on which the subject acts, or over which the quality predicated ex- tends, as in ἀλγῷ τὴν κεφαλήν; ---80 τοῦ πάντ᾽ εὐδαίμονος ὄλβου, Soph. (Βα. Tyr. 1197. See Kiihner, ii. 222. 4) please (‘am pleasing :’ as Meyer well remarks, not the παραδεδωκα XN: παραδωκα F. aft παραδοσεις ins μου D'F latt [Ambrst Pel]. om υμιν F(and G-lat, not F-lat) ins ovtws bef om Ist o B'D'F. result, but the practiee on Paul’s part; for πᾶσιν ἀρέσκειν τὸν συμβουλεύοντα K. τὰ κοινὰ πράττοντα ἀδύνατον, Demosth. 1481. 4). ἐμαυτοῦ and τῶν πολλῶν are opposed: see ver. 24. ἵνα σωθ., his great aim and end ;—so eh. ix. 22. ΧΙ. 1.] κἀγώ, scil. μιμητὴς γέγονα, pare on the sense, Phil. ii. 4, 5. XI. 2—84.] REPROOFS AND DIBEC- TIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DISORDERS WHICH HAD ARISEN IN THEIR ASSEM- BLIES: viz. (1) THE NOT VEILING OF THEIR WOMEN IN PUBLIC PRAYER (Vv. 2—16): (2) THE ABUSE OF THE ἀγάπαι (17—34). 2—16.] The law of sub- jection of the woman to the man (2— 12), and natural decency itself (18--- 16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies. 2.1 δέ, implying a distinction from the spirit of the last passage, which was one of blame, and exhortation toimitate him. He praises them for the degree in which they did this already, and expresses it by the slighter word μέμνησθε. πάντα, see above, on ch. x. 33. And ye keep (continue to believe and practise) the traditions (apostolic maxims of faith and practice, delivered either orally or in writing, Com- 002 564 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT® A. ΧΙ. 4 \ « p abso, Matt. χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ vi. 5, ἄς. q- Acts xix. — 6. ch. xiii. 9. xiv. 1, ἄς. [om 2nd δε P.] r (Mark xiv. 3 rec.) and ellips., Esth. vi. 12. τοῦ χριστοῦ ὁ θεός. * πᾶς ἀνὴρ Ρ προςευχόμενος ἢ 4 προ- φητεύων ' κατὰ " κεφαλῆς ἔχων " καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν s = ch, i. 27. ver. 22. rec om του (bef xpiorov), with CFKLP rel Orig, Eus, Chr, [Cyr-p,] Thdrt Damase Thi, (ἔς : ins ABDN m 17 Clem Eus, Chr, [Euthal-ms] ΤῊ], C)- 2 Thess. ii. 15), according as (according to the words in which) I delivered (them) to you. This was their general practice : the eaceptions to it, or departures at all events from the spirit of those παραδόσεις, now follow. 8.1 “It appears, that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for their sex an equality with the other, taking occasion by the doctrine of Chris- tian freedom and abolition of sexual dis- tinctions in Christ (Gal. iii. 28). The gospel unquestionably did much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionian Greeks (not among the Dorians and the Romans) were kept in unworthy dependence. Still this was effected in a quiet and gradual manner ; whereas in Corinth they seem to have tuken up the cause of female independence somewhat too eagerly. ‘The women over- stepped the bounds of their sex, in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved,— as well their coming forward to pray and to prophesy, as their removing the veil: here however he blames the latter practice only, and reserves the former till ch. xiv. 34. In order to confine the women to their true limits, he reminds them of their subjection to the man, to whom again he ussigns his place in the spiritual order of creation, and traces this precedence up to God Himself.” De Wette. παντὸς ἀνδρός} ‘of every Christian man’ (as Chrys., al., Meyer, De W.), certainly, — and for such the Apostle was writing: but not only of every Christian man: the Headship of Christ is over all things to His Church, Eph. i. 22, and thus He is Head of every man. The word κεφαλή in each case means the head next above. This must be borne in mind, for Christ is THE HeaD of the Christian woman, as well as of the Christian man. God is the Head of Christ, not only according to His human Nature: the Son is, in his Sonship, necessarily subordinate to the Father : see ch. iii. 23, note, and ch. xv. 28. From 'χριστός, the order descends first: then, in order to complete the whole, ascends up to God, Observe that though (Gal. iti, 28) the distinction of the sexes is ‘abolished in Christ, as far as the offer of and standing in grace is concerned, yet for practical purposes, and for order and seemliness, it subsists and must be ob- served. 4.| The case of the man here treated, was regarded by the ancient Com- mentators, Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., (Εο., and Grot., Mosh., al., as an actually occurring one among the Corinthians :— but by recent ones, since Storr and Bengel, as hypothetically put, to bring out that other abuse which really had occurred. Had it been real, more would have been said on it below: but from ver. 5 onwards, attention is confined to the woman. προςευχ. praying in public: προφ. discoursing in the spirit; see on ch. xii. 10. κατὰ κεφ. ἔχων] scil. τι. ‘The Jews when praying in public put over their heads a veil, called the Tallith, to shew their reverence before God and their unworthiness to look on Him: Lightf., Hor. Heb. in loc. Grotius’s note on the Greek and Roman customs is important: —‘ Apud Grzcos mos fuit sacra facere capite aperto. Legendum enim apud Macrob. i. Saturn. 8, Zllie Greco ritu capite aperto res divina fit, apparet ex loco ejusdem libri c. 10, ubi itidem dé Saturno agitur, et sacrum ei fieri dicitur aperto capite ritu peregrino; et ex loco ili. 6, ubi Varronem ait dicere, Greeci hoc esse moris, aperto capite sacrificare. amapa- καλύπτῳ κεφαλῇ ait de ejusdem Saturni sacris agens Plutarchus in Romanis quies- tionibus. Lucem facere id dici solitum Festus testatur. Eodem modo, id est aperto capite, etiam Herculi in ara maxima sacrum fieri solere testatur, praeter Macro- bium dicto libro iii. 6, Dion. Hal. lib. i., nimirum quia id sacrum institutem erat ab Evandro homine Greco. Sed Aineas (?) contrarium morem in Italiam intulit sacra faciendi velato capite, ne quod malum omen oculis aut auribus obveniret: ut Virg. nos docet Mn. iii. et ad eum Servius, et in Breviario Aurelius Victor: sed et Plutarchus in Romanis questionibus. Et ejus moris etiam Plautus meminit in comeediis quibusdam: ut sdlet admiscere Romana Grecis. Paulus Grecis Corinthiis scribens Grecum prefert morem, et causas adfert quales ferebat negotii natura. Ex Pauli prescripto perpetuo bune morem tenuere Christiani veteres. Tertul. Apo- logetico: ‘Illue suspicientes Christiani wianibus expansis, quia innocui:. capite ABCDE KLPR abcd: fghk mno 17. 47 4—7, nw : - ‘ / A αὐτοῦ. ὅ πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ Ῥ προςευχομένη ἢ ᾿ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ " καταισ ύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἤν TN ' ” Χ' ω ” ’ n < , ’ Ν ᾽ A ’ , > αὐτῆς" “ev γάρ ἐστιν " καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ " ἐξυρημένῃ. ὃ εἰ Ν » Ww / / \ x / θ ᾽ δὲ γὰρ οὐ "' κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ " κειράσθω' εἰ δὲ ΣΝ x See NaS ye , θ Ἀν χσθ w Ὶ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ * κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, “' κατακα- μοφειλει λυπτέσθω. Ἷ ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ * ὀφείλει * κατακαλύπτε- ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΊΟΥΣ Α. 565 4 προφητεύουσα ι ver. 13 onl Li on Levit. xiii 45 A Ald. compl. (there also ἃ ch. xii. (9) 11 only. constr., here only. n- : see 1 Pet.v.9 \ ͵ aN \ A ς 7 ς © : > .xara- σθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, ὃ εἰκὼν καὶ ° δόξα θεοῦ 4 ὑπάρχων" ἡ v here bis. ας καλ. τὴν only. Num. vi. 9. w here (3ce) only, Gen. xxxvill. 15 al. x here bis. Acts Vill. a 32. xviii. 18 only. 2 Kings xiv. 26. : y ch. xiv. 35. Eph. v.12. Tit.i. Jl only. P. Gen. ἘΠ. ABCDF 3, ἄς. only. z constr., Phil. i. 21. _. ἃ = Acts xvii. 29. Rom. xv. 1. b Rom. KLPR viii. 29 reff. GEN, 1, 26, 27. c = Ps. xviii. 1. d Acts viii. 16 reff. acde f ghklm _ 5. for πασα de, και π. A Syr eth: om de P. om τη D'F. rec for αὐτῆς, 9 17 47. cavrns (see note), with BD#KL rel Orig,: txt ACD!FLPN a Ὁ] d g* h o 17 Chr, Thdrt [ Euthal-ms Damasc ]. 6. aft κειρασθω ins ἡ ξυρασθω B. 7. rec om 7 (conforming to the preceding and following), with CD*KLRX, rel Chr, nudo, quia non erubescimus: denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus,’ &c, Nihil hue pertinet mos Septentrionis in re- verentie signum caput velandi, qui quan- quam per Germanicas nationes late manavit, et Judzis tamen et Grecis, et veteri Italie fuit incognitus.” καταισχ. τ. κεφ. αὐτοῦ] dishonours his Head, i.e. Christ: not, his own head literally,—except in so far as the literal and metaphorical senses are both included,—the (literal) head of the man being regarded as the representa- tive of his spiritual Head. See this brought ‘ out in Stanley’s note: for the head of the man in this respect of honouring or dis- honouring, has been, ver. 3, explained to be Curist. Him he dishonours, by appearing veiled before men, thus recog- nizing subjection to them in an assembly which ought to be conformed to Christian order. 5.] The case of the woman is just the converse. She, if she uncovers herself (on the manner of covering, see below ver. 15, note) in such an assembly, dishonours her head (the man; not, as Meyer and many others, literally, her own head (but see above): of this kind of dis- honour there is no mention at all in our passage, and ver. 3 has expressly guarded us against making the mistake) by appa- rently casting off his headship: and if this is to be so, the Apostle proceeds, why not go further and cut off ber hair, which of itself is a token of this subjection? But if this be acknowledged to be shameful (it was a punishment of adulteresses, see Wetst. in loc. and Tacit. Germ. 19), let the further decency of the additional covering be conceded likewise. The reading ἑαυτῆς may have arisen from fancying that her own head is meant. ἕν... ἐστιν κ- τὸ αὐτό] she: not it, τὸ ἀκατακάλυπτον εἶναι. The neut. is used because the identity is generic, not indivi- dual: cf. Eur. Med. 928,-- γυνὴ δὲ θῆλυ κἀπὶ δακρύοις ἔφυ, and other examples in Kihner, ii. 45 (§ 421). 6.] the ar- gument see above. ov Kat.,—is to be unveiled, the pres. indicating the normal habit. καὶ κειρ.») let her atso, besides being unveiled, &c. κείρ. ἢ Eup. ] ‘plus est radi quam tonderi,’ Grot. 7—9.] A second reason for the same,— from the dependence of the man on God only, but of the woman on the man. 7.1 yap refers back to and gives a reason for κατακαλυπτέσθω, the difference be- tween the sexes being assumed,—that one should be and the other should not be veiled. The emphasis is accordingly on ἀνήρ. οὐκ ὀφείλει, should not, ought not: see reff. εἰκὼν θεοῦ, ref. Gen. This the man is, having been created first,—directly, and in a special manner : the woman indirectly, only through the man. x. δόξα θ.] And the (repre- sentative of the) glory of God: on account of his superiority and godlike attributes among other created beings. This is ob- viously the point here brought out, as in Ps. viii. 6: not, that he is set to shew forth God’s glory (εἰς γὰρ δόξαν θεοῦ ὀφείλει ὁ ἀνὴρ ὑποτετάχθαι τῷ θεῷ, Phot. in cum.), however true that may be: nor, as Estius, from Augustine, ‘quia in illo Deus gloriatur:’ nor is δόξα the repre- sentative of the Heb. nn, Gen. i. 26 (ὁμοίωσι5), as Riickert, al., suppose, be- cause the LXX have rendered nym, Num. xii. 8; Ps. xvii. 15, by δόξα : for, as Meyer observes, in so well-known a passage as Gen. i. 26, the Apostle could hardly fait to have used the LXX word ὁμοίωσις. Man is God’s glory: He has put in him His Majesty, and he represents God on earth: woman is man’s glory : taken (ver. 8) from the man, shining (to follow out Grotius’s similitude, “minus aliquid vero, ut luna lumen minus sole ”’) not with light direct from God, but with light derived γυνὴ δὲ “ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ Α: ΧΙ, 8 ’ , 3 9 x » οὐ γὰρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ Tar’? σπυναικός, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός" 9 καὶ γὰρ οὐκ " ἐκτίσθη f = as ordi- narily; e.g. Matt. x. 1 αἷς ἕν; g see note, [Euthal-ms] Damase: ins ABD'FPN? Isid, Thdrt. 10. ἡ γυνὴ bef οφειλει H m 17. 8. om ver K. from man, “τὸ θῆλυ, ἄῤῥεν ἀτελές, phi- losophis. Imperat materfamilias sue fa- miliw, sed viri nomine.” Grot. This of course is true only as regards her place in creation, and her providential subor- dination, not in respect of the dependence of every woman’s individual soul directly on God, not on man, for supplies of grace and preparations for glory. ‘The Apostle omits εἰκών, because anthropologically the woman is not the image of the man, on account of the difference of the sexes: and also perhaps because thus he would seem to deny to the woman the being created in the divine image, which she is as well as the man, Gen. i. 26, 27. The former reason appears the more probable: and so De W. and Meyer. “It may be observed that, whereas in Genesis the general character of man under the Hebrew name answering to ἄνθρωπος is the only one brought forward, here it is merged in the word ἀνήρ, which only expresses his rela- tion to the woman.” Stanley. 8.1 yap gives the reason of the former assertion γυνὴ δόξα avdpdés,—viz. that the man is not (emphasis on ἐστιν, which prevents the x having a figurative sense, of dependence : —‘takes not his being,’ in the fact of his original creation. The propagation of the species is not here in view) out of the woman, but the woman out of the man (compare Gen. ii. 23, κληθήσεται γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ Tov ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη). 9.7 For also (parallel with ver. 8—another reason: not subordinate to it, as Meyer, who renders é« in ver. 8, ‘dependent on,’ and regards this verse as giving the reason) the man was not created (emphasis on ἐκτίσθη, as before on ἐστιν) on account of the woman, &c In this verse, besides the manner of creation, ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός, the occasion of creation, διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα, is in- sisted on; see Gen. ii. 18 ff. 10. | διὰ τοῦτο, on account. of what has just been said, by which the subordination of the woman has been proved :—refers to vv. 7—9, not as Meyer, to ver. 9 only: for vv. 8, 9, give two parallel reasons for γυνὴ δόξα ἀνδρός, the inference from which pro- position has not yet been given, but now follows, with ὀφείλει answering to οὐκ ὀφείλει above. dd. 4H y. ἐξουσίαν ἔχ. ἐπὶ τῆς κεφ. The woman ought to have power (the sign of power or subjection ; ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα. n ᾿ ¢ ¥ , na r eee τοῦτο " ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἴ ἐξουσίαν § ἔχειν ὃ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ABCDF HKLPR acdef ghklm ο 17. 47 ins του bef avdpos F. shewn by the context to mean a veil). So Diodor. Sic. i. 47: εἰκόνα... .. εἴκοσι πη- χῶν, μονόλιθον, ἔχουσαν τρεῖς βασιλείας ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῇ», ἃς διασημαίνειν ὅτι καὶ θυγάτηρ καὶ γυνὴ καὶ μήτηρ βασιλέως ὕπηρξε, where βασίλειαι evidently are crowns, the tokens of kingdom. And as there from the context it is plain that they indicated participation in the glory of the kingdoms, so here it is as evident from the context that the token of ἐξουσία indi- cates being uxder power: and such token is the covering. So Chrys. (τὸ καλύπτε- σθαι, ὑποταγῆς κ. egovolas), Theodoret, Theophyl. (τὸ τοῦ ἐξουσιάζεσθαι σύμβο- λον), (ἔσαπι., Beza, Grot., Est., Bengel, Wolf, al., Billroth, Riickert, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette. To enumerate the various renderings would be impossible. Some of the principal are, (1) a sign of power to pray and prophesy in public, bestowed on her by her husband. So Schrader, iv. 158: but this would be quite irrelevant to thecon- text. (2) Some suppose ἐξουσίαν actually to mean a veil, because the Heb. TN, ‘a veil,’ comes from the root 111, ‘ subjecit.’ So Hammond, Le Clere, al. But (see Lexx.) ‘ subjecit’ is not the primary, only a tropical meaning: the primary meaning, ‘extendit, deduxit,’ is much more likely to have given rise to the substantive. It is certainly a curious coincidence that the Heb. terms should be thus allied,—and that alliance may have been present to the Apostle’s thoughts: but this does not shew that he used ἐξουσία for a veil. (3) Kypke would put a comma after éfouc., and render ‘ propterea mulier potestati obnowia est, ita ut velamen (see ver. 4) in capite habeat.’? But the sense of ὀφεί- Ae Tt would require (see Lexx.) ὑπακοήν, not ἐξουσίαν. (4) Pott renders, ‘ mulie- rem oportet servare jus (sive potestatem) in caput suum, sc. eo, quod illud velo obtegat.’ But this, though philologically allowable (see Rev. xi. 6; xx. 6; xiv. 18; and with ἐπάνω, Luke xix. 17), is entirely against the context, in which the woman has no power over her own head, and oz that very account is to be covered. (5) Hagenbach (in the Stud. und Krit. 1828, p- 401) supposes ἐξουσία here to mean her origin, e€-ovola from ἐξ-εἶμι, aS παρ-οὐσία from map-eiuc:—to shew that she (ver. 8) ἐστιν ἐξ ἀνδρός. But apart from other 10 διὰ Η ανηρ = atic « 7 whe ἡ 8-- 11. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 567 διὰ τοὺς " ἀγγέλους. 11] ἱπλὴν οὔτε γυνὴ χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς b =: ordi- exxxvii. l. ν. 33. narily; so Ps. i -- Matt. Luke passim (not Mark, John, nor Luke in Acts). Paul, Eph. Phil. i. 18. iii. 16. iv. 14 only. Rev. ii. 25. Lam. iii. 3. 11. rec avnp xwpts yur. ουτε γυνὴ xwpis avd. (appy more natural order), with D2[-gr] objections to this, it must thus be, τὴν ἐξ. or τὴν ἐξ. αὐτῆς. Other renderings and conjectures may be seen in Meyer’s note, from which the above is mainly taken: and in Stanley’s. διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους] On account of the angels: i.e. because in the Christian assemblies the holy angels of God are present, and delighting in the due order and subordination of the ranks of God’s servants,—-and by a violation of that order we should be giving offence to them. See ref. So Chrys. (οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι μετ᾽ ay- γέλων ἕστηκας ; μετ᾽ ἐκείνων ἄδεις, μετ᾽ ἐκείνων ὑμνεῖς, καὶ ἕστηκας γελῶν ; cited by Hammond, but from what work of Chrys. 1 have not been able to find. In his com- mentary on this passage he is not clear, but seems to take this view,—ei yap Tov ἀνδρὸς καταφρονεῖς, φησί, τοὺς ἀγγέλους αἰδέσθητι, Hom. xxvi. p. 294. In the Hom. on the Ascension, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 443 (Migne), he says, εἰ βούλει ἰδεῖν K. μάρτυρας K. ἀγγέλους ἄνοιξον THs πίστεως τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, κ. ὄψει τὸ θέατρον ἐκεῖνο" εἰ γὰρ πῶς 6 ἀὴρ ἀγγέλων ᾿ ἐμπέπλησται, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκκλησία ....67t γὰρ ἅπας 6 ἀὴρ ἀγγέλων ἐμπέ- πλήησται, ἄκουσον τί φησιν 6 ἀπόστολος, ἐντρέπων τὰς γυναῖκας ὥςτε ἔχειν κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆπ᾽ ““ὀφείλουσιν k.T.A.”), Grot. (whose note see in Pool), Estius, Wolf, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette. (1) Others, with a modification of this render- ing, take τοὺς ἀγγέλους as the guardian angels, appointed, one to take charge of each Christian. So Theophyl. (τὸ ava- κεκαλύφθαι ἀναισχυντίαν ἐμφαίνει" ἣν καὶ οἱ τοῖς πιστοῖς παρεπόμενοι ἄγγελοι βδε- λύσσονται), Jerome (not Aug. de Trin. xii. 7, as Meyer, see below), Theodoret. But, though such angels certainly do minister to the heirs of salvation,—see Matt. xviii. 10, and note,—there does not appear to be any immediate allusion to them here. (2) Others again understand ‘ bad angels,’ who might themselves be lustfully excited; so Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 7, vol. ii. p. 899, “ propter angelos: scilicet quos legimus a Deo et ceelo excidisse ob concupiscentiam foeminarum.”’ See also cont. Marcion. v. 8, p. 488.—or might tempt men so to be, —Schottgen, Mosh., al.,—or might injure the unveiled themselves: so, after Rab- binical notions, Wetst. But of ἄγγελοι, absol., never means any thing in the N. T. except the holy angels of God. See, in Stanley’s note, a modification of this view, which is consistent with that meaning. (3) Clem. Alex. fragm. ix. ὕποτυπ. lib. iii. (p. 1004 P.) says, ἀγγέλους φησὶ τοὺς δικαίους, Kk. evapérous. (4) Beza, the Christian prophets, ‘in ccetu loquentes ut Dei nuncios et legatos.” (5) Ambrose, the presidents of the assemblies. (6) Lightf., the axgeli or nuntii desponsatio- mum, persons deputed to bring about be- trothals. (7) Rosenm., Schrader, and many others,—eaxploratores vel speculatores : “‘ Poterat nempe nove consuetudinis notitia per ἀπίστους speculatores in publicum ema- nare, christianasque uxores tum Judzis, de isto mulierum habitu pessime existiman- tibus, tum Grecis quoque in suspicionem rei christiane probrosissimam adducere.” Rosenm. Against all these ingenious interpretations is the plain sense of οἱ &y- γελοι (Matt. xiii. 49. Mark i. 13. Luke xvi. 22. chap. xiii. 1. Col. ii. 18. Heb. i. 4, 5, 7, 13, al.), which appears to me irre- fragable. But still a question remains, Wuy should the Apostle have here named the angels, and adduced them as furnish- ing a reason for women being veiled in the Christian assemblies? Bengel has given an acute, but not I believe the correct answer : “mulier se tegat propter angelos, i.e. quia etiam angeli teguntur. Sicut ad Deum se habent angeli: sic ad virum se habet mulier. Dei facies patet: velan- tur angeli: Esa. vi. 2. Viri facies patet : velatur mulier.” Surely this lies too far off for any reader to supply without fur- ther specification. Aug. de Trin. xii. 7 (10), vol. viii. p. 1004, gives an ingenious reason: “Grata est enim sanctis angelis sacrata et pia significatio. Nam Deus non ad tempus videt, nec aliquid novi fit in Kjus visione atque scientia, cum aliquid temporaliter aut transitorie geritur, sicut inde afficiuntur sensus vel carnales anima- lium et hominum, vel etiam ccelestes an- gelorum.” (He makes no mention,—see above,—of guardian angels.) I believe the account given above to be the true one, and the reason of adducing it to be, that the Apostle has before his mind the order of the universal church, and prefers when speaking of the assemblies of Chris- tians, to adduce those beings who, as not entering into the gradation which he has here described, are conceived as spectators of the whole, delighted with the decency and order of the servants of God. Stan- ley thinks the most natural explanation of the reference to be, that the Apostle was led to it by a train of association familiar to his readers, but lost to us: and compares the intimations of a similar familiarity on their part with the subjects of which he 568 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. AY. 7 “ον \ \ ᾽ i 12 Μ“' \ e \ krers. Οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωρὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίῳ 15 ὥςπερ γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ ABCDF Lh. viii. 6. Ὰ Ε : a » ; Rom. xi. 36. Κ ἐς τοῦ ἀνδρός, οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ διὰ τῆς γυναικός, τὰ Séacdef 43 gre ae ΄, 15" a κ᾿ ae ae ee “yar ; , ghkim 1, Pai. /wavtTa!éx τοῦ θεοῦ. 15 ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς ™ κρίνατε" ™ πρέπον 017. 47 n Matt. iii 15 2 ; Ἢ a ; TA oe ἐστὶν γυναῖκα ὃ ἀκατακάλυπτον τῷ θεῷ προςεύχεσθαι ; x r ΄ \ ΄ a / 3: τῷ \ >: (-wet, Eph. 14 οὐδὲ ἡ Ρ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς OTL ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν ii. 10. Tit. ii. lal Lal » - ‘ \ ~ , 1. Heb. 0. 4 κομᾷ, " ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν, 15 γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν 4 κομᾷ, δόξα vii. 26 only. Ps. lxiv. 1.) constr., here only. o ver. ὃ. » bis only +. r Rom. i. 26 reff. u Heb. i. 12 (from Ps. ci. 26) only. Exod. xxii. 27. Job xxvi.6. Ps. ciii. 6. “Ὁ εἰ / ΄ αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ " κόμη ἵ ἀντὶ ἃ περιβολαίου δέδοται p = Rom. i. 26 (reff.). ii. 27. xi. 21, 24. see James iii. 7. here q s here only. Num. vi. 5. t = Luke xi. 11. KL rel vulg syrr Chr, Thdrt Pel: txt ABC D!3[and lat] FHP ἃ m 17 coptt eth arm Clem, Bas-sel Damasce Sing-cler, Ambrst Aug). 12. om 6 F(not G) 17[om 7 also}. e contra Tischdf]. for δια, εκ Καὶ [f]. om της H [ Montf: 13. for ev ὑμιν αὑτοῖς, vues αυὐτοι D vulg(not tol [vos autem am}) lat-ff. mposevx. bef τω 6. DF [latt syrr coptt eth arm(Tischdf) }. 14. rec ins ἡ bef ovde (addition to mark the interrogation), with D3KL rel syr-mg sah: om ABCD!FHPR 17. 47 latt syrr copt arm [ Euthal-ms | Ambr, Ambrst. rec αὐτὴ bet ἡ φυσις, with D?KL rel Chr, Thdrt: om avrn F[-gr] arm[?] Tert,: txt ABCD!3HPX ἃ m 17 [Euthal-ms} Damasc,. erasure) copt. for eav, av D}. aft μεν ins yap N!(but marked for 15. avtn δεδοται CHP ἃ ἃ m vulg(with F-lat) syr Damasc, Ambr: om avty D ΕἾ -gr] KLefh1 [47] Chr, Thdrt Ee Tert.: δεδοται αὐτὴ ABN c g Κο 17 G-lat Syr coptt zeth arm [ Euthal-ms]. was treating in 2 Thess. ii. 5—7. 11,1 Yet is neither sex insulated and inde- pendent of the other in the Christian life. ἐν κυρίῳ is not the predicate (as Grot., &c.),—‘ neque viri exclusis mulieribus .. . participes sunt beneficiorum per Christum partorum : nor does it mean according to the ordinance of God, as Chrys., Beza, Olsh.,—for the phrase ἐν κυρίῳ is well known as applying to the Christian state, " in the Lord. See 6. σ΄. Rom. xvi. 2, 8, 11, 12 (bis), &e. 12.) And in this, the Christian life accords with the original ordinance of God. For (proof of ver. 11) as the woman is (was taken, Gen. ii. 21 f.) out of the man, so the man is (is born, in the propagation of the human race) by means of the woman; but all things (both man and woman and all things else: a general maxim, see 2 Cor. v. 18) are of (as their source, —thus uniting in one great head both sexes and all creation) God. They are dependent on one another, but both on Him: the Christian life therefore, which unites them in Christ, is agreeable to God’s ordinance. 13. | Appeal to their own sense of propriety : ct. ch. x. 15. ἐν ὑμῖν avr. | Each man within himself, in his own judgment. 14.] ἡ φύσις αὐτή, nature herself: i.e. the mere fuct of one sex being by nature unveiled, i.e. having short hair,—the other, veiled, i. 6. having long hair. This plainly declares that man was intended to be uncovered,— woman, covered. When therefore we deal with the proprieties of the artificial state, of clothing the body, we must be regulated by nature’s suggestion: that which she has indicated to be left uncovered, wé must so leave: that which she has covered, when we clothe the body, we must cover likewise. This is the argument. φύσις is not sense of natural propriety, but NATURE,—the law of creation. konpa | So Eustathius, Il. y. p. 288, in Wetst., κόμην δὲ ἔχειν, καὶ εὔκομον εἶναι, γυναικώτερόν ἐστιν. διὸ καὶ ὁ Πάρις ὀνειδί- ζεται ὧς κόμην ἔχων. On φύσις and κομᾷ Pool observes, ‘locus est vexatissimus doctorum sententiis ; and gives a note of four folio columns; and Bengel has a long discussion on the lawfulness of wigs. The Apostle (see above) makes no allusion to the customs of nations in the matter, nor is even the mention of them relevant(: he is speaking of the dictates of nature herself. ] 15.] See on ver. 14: com- pare Milton, Par. Lost, iv. 304 ff. περιβόλαιον, properly a wrapper, or en- veloping garment: see reff., and Eurip. Herc. fur. 549, and in a metaphorical sense, 1269. “In this passage,” says Stanley, “the Apostle would refer to the ‘peplum,’ which the Greciaa women used ordinarily as a shawl, but on public oeca- sions as a hood also, especially at funerals and marriages.” See a woodcut in Smith’s Dict. of Antt. art. ‘peplum.’ 16.] Cuts off the subject, already abundantly decided, with a settlement of any possible difference, by appeal to universal apostolic and ecclesiastic custom. But if any man seems to be contentious (i. e. ‘ if any arises who appears to dispute the matter, who ee 12—18. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 569 a , al , “-“ Sf af [avr]: 16 εἰ δέ τις " δοκεῖ © φιλόνεικος εἶναι, ἡμεῖς τοιαὕτην ¥ = Luke xxi. 7, e rad al 5 τᾶν =. Heov Η. ἢ συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, οὐδὲ ai γ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ * θεοῦ. og aif ABCDF i ἘΞ ΝΠ ἡ , > b2 a er » c .2.. W here only. KLPR 7 Touro δὲ παραγγέλλω OUK ~ ETTALWWY, OTL Οὐκ “ELS Ezek. iii.7 acdef , ἃ ε 9 Meee? i ae ξ r 18 a only. (-Kta, ghklm-T0 ὃ κρεῖσσον ἀλλὰ " εἰς τὸ ὃ ἧσσον ‘ συνέρχεσθε. βρῶ Se . τκεῖν, Bat 34 Prov. x. 12.) x John xviii. 39. ch. viii. 7 v. τ. only+. Prov. xvii. 9 Symm. [or -θης]. (-θης, 2 Macc. iii. 31.) y plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. z ch. i. 2 reff. a Acts i. 4 reff. b ver. 2. ς see Rom. xiii. 4 reff. d ch, vii. 9 reff. e = here (2 Cor. xii. 15) only}. (Isa. xxiii. 8.) f= Acts i. 6 reff. g (Rom. iii. 2.} 17. rec παραγγελλων ovr επαινω (see vv. 2 and 22), with C3(appy) D3(and lat) F[-gr] KLPX rel copt [sah-mnt] Chr, Thdrt !Sedul]: -Aw οὐκ -yw D'{-gr] 137 sah[-woide Euthal-ms]: Bede. [ Euthal-ms ].) seems not satisfied with the reasons I have given, but is still disputatious ;’—this is the only admissible sense of δοκεῖ in this construction: see reff. :—for the meaning, ‘if it pleases any one, &c. would require τινι δοκεῖ : and ‘if any one thinks that he may, &c. would not agree with φιλονεικεῖν, which is in itself wrong). ἡμεῖς] declarative: let him know that... .; so, εἰ δὲ κατακαυχᾶσαι, ov σὺ τὴν ῥίζαν βαστά- ζεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ῥίζα σέ, Rom. xi. 18. We,— the Apostles and their immediate company, —including the women who assembled in prayer and supplication with them at their various stations, see Acts xvi. 138. τοιαύτην συνήθειαν] The best modern Commentators, e. g. Meyer and De Wette, agree with Chrys. in understanding this, τοιαύτ. συνήθ., ὥςτε φιλονεικεῖν κ. ἐρίζειν k. ἀντιτάττεσθαι. Ὁ. 285. Andso Ambrose, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calov., al. Βαῦ surely it would be very unlikely, that after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up all by merely a censure of a fault common to their be- haviour on this and all the other matters of dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify the conclusion :—‘ If any will dispute about it still, remember that it is neither our practice, nor that of the Churches, to dispute.’ It would seem to me, but for the weighty names on the other side, hardly to admit of a question, that the συνήθεια alludes to the practice (see ref. John) of women praying uncovered. So Theodoret, Grot., Michaelis, Rosenm., Billroth, Olsh., al., and Theophyl. altern. He thus cuts off all further disputation on the matter by appealing to universal Christian usage: and to make the appeal more solemn, adds τοῦ θεοῦ to αἱ éxxA.,— the assemblies which are held in honour of and for prayer to God, and are His own Churches. Obs. at ἐκκλησίαι, not ἣ ἐκκλησία. The plurality of independent testimonies to the absence of the custom, is that on which the stress is laid. This appeal, ‘to THE CHURCHES,’ was much heard again at the Reformation: but has «λων οὐκ -vwy Bd: txt AC! 17 latt syrr eth[appy ] arm Ambrst Aug Pel (κρεισσον, so ABCD!FPR 17 [Damasc].) (nooo, so ABCD'® [Euthal-ms]: ἐλαττον F Thdrt: ἴσον 17.) (adda, so ABCD! ml since been too much forgotten. See, on the influence of this passage on the Chris- tian church, the general remarks of Stan- ley, edn. 2, pp. 198—200. 17—34. ] Correction of abuses regarding the Agape and the partaking of the Supper of the Lord. 17.] Refers back to what has been said since ver. 2, and forms a transi- tion to what is yet to be said. But this (viz. what has gone before, respecting the veiling of women; not, as Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Bengel, al., that which follows: see below) I command you (not ‘announce to you,’ nor ‘declare to you Jrom report, which are senses of παραγγ. unknown to the N. T., where it only means ‘to command, —‘to deliver by way of precept: see reff., and ch. vii. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10, 12. This mukes it hardly possible to refer τοῦτο to what follows ; for if so, some definite com- mand should immediately succeed) not praising (refers to the ἐπαινῶ of ver. 2, and excepts what has been said since from that category); because you come together not for the better (so that edification results) but for the worse (so that propriety is violated, and the result is to the hinder- ing of the faith). These last words ὅτι ... ouvepx. are introduced with a mani- fest view to include move than the subject hitherto treated, and to prepare the way for other abuses of their assemblies to be noticed. 18.] mp@tov—where is the second particular founda, nswering to this mpe@tov? Ordinarily, it is assumed that the σχίσματα are the first abuse, the dis- orders.in the Agape (beginning with ver. 20), the second. But I am convinced, with Meyer, that this view is wrong. For (1) neither special blame, nor correction of abuse, is conveyed in vv. 18, 19: nor is it so much as intimated, on the ordinary hypothesis, what the character of these σχίσματα was. And (2) the words of ver. 22, ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς ἐν τούτῳ ; οὐκ ἐπαινῶ, plainly refer back to ver. 17, and shew that the whole is continuous. Again (3) the οὖν of ver. 20, as so frequently,—see ch. 570 = ch. v. 3. 2 Cor. ix. l. i w. acc. and inf., John xii. 18 only. j ch. i. 10 reff. k Acts viii. 16 1=here only, Thucyd. ii. 64. iv. 30. = ἐκ μέρους, ch. xiii. 9, ἄς. reff. ] ) al. fr. Job xxix, 24. n = Acts iv. 12 reff. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. ΧΙ. gh ,δ hee f 0 Cc oa ’ ’ oi ἂς , τον & μὲν " γὰρ ᾿ συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ' ἀκούω Ἰσχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν " ὑπάρχειν, καὶ | μέρος τι ™ πιστεύω. “- \ e a 19" δεῖ γὰρ καὶ ° αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, iva [καὶ] ot 80- “ m = Matt. xxiv. 23,26 o Acts νυ. 17 retf. p Rom. xiv. 18 reff. 18. rec ins τη bef exxAnota (the meaning being mistaken: see note), with g h 47 farm(Treg)] Thl @e: om ABCDFKLPR rel Chr, [Euthal-ms] Damase. υπ- apxew bef ev ὑμιν D3F vulg-ed arm: om ev ὑμὶν am(with demid fuld harl [tol }) Orig[-int,] Ambrst Bede. 19. om Ist ev usw D'F latt Orig-int, [(Tert,;) Cypr. Ambrst Aug, | (not Orig, [Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc] Jer, Primas): ins aft εἰναι D3[-gr coptt | Archel,. aft wa ins kat B D)(and lat) m 17 vulg sah Ambrst Pel Bede: om AC D8(-gr] FKLP® rel syrr copt [arm] Orig,[-int,] Epiph, Chr; [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase Cypr, [(Tert,) Jer,]: «at wa καὶ ml. viii. 4, and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 22, —resumes the subject broken off by καὶ μέρος . - - γέν. ἐν ὑμῖν. The σχίσματα before the Apostle’s mind are, specifically, those occurring at the Agapz#,—but on the mention of them, he breaks off to shew that such divisions were to be no matters of surprise, but were ordained to test them,—and in ver. 20 he returns with the very words, συνερχομένων ὑμῶν,---ἴο the immediate matter in hand, and treats it at length. See more on vv. 21 ff. But the question still remains, where is the second point, answering to this mpérov? Again with Meyer (and Macknight) I answer,— at ch. xii. 1. The ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL eirts, which alse created disorder in their assemblies, ch. xiv. 23 al., and concerning which he concludes, xiv. 40, πάντα εὐσχη- μόνως K. κατὰ τάξιν γινέσθω, ---γὰϑ the other point before his mind, when he wrote this πρῶτον. That he takes no notice in ch. xii. 1, by any ἔπειτα δέ or the like, of what has gone before, will be no objection to the above view to any one but the merest tiro in our Apostle’s style. There is a trajection of the ἀκούω, which, in the sense, precedes cuvepx., ὅσ. ἐν ἐκκλ. in assembly; not local, as E. V., ‘in the church, but = ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, ver. 20. [In ver. 16, where the word is used of distinct bodies of Chris- tians, it was not possible to keep the word assemblies, but it should be done whenever the sense admits it, and it suits the matter in hand]. σχίσματα] of what sort, is specified below ; viz. that he does not here refer to the party dissensions of ch. i. 10, nor could he say of them μέρος τι πιστεύω, but strictly to σχίσματα which took place at their meetings together, viz. that each takes before other his own supper, ἄς. So Chrys.: οὐ λέγει, ἀκούω γὰρ μὴ κοινῇ ὑμᾶς συνδειπνεῖν" ἀκούω κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ὑμᾶς ἑστιᾶσθαι, καὶ μὴ μετὰ τῶν πενήτων" ἀλλ᾽ ὃ μάλιστα ἱκανὸν ἦν αὐτῶν διασεῖσαι τὴν διάνοιαν, τοῦτο τέθεικε, τὸ τοῦ σχίσματος ὄνομα, ὃ καὶ τούτου ἦν αἴτιον, Hom. xxvii. p. 241; and Theophyl., Gc., Est., Pise., Grot., which last remarks, ‘Accidebat jam illis temporibus, quod nostris multo magis evenit, ut res in. stituta ad concorporandos fideles in vex- illum schismatis verteretur.’ κι μέρος τι πιστ.) Said in gentleness: q.d. “I am unwilling to believe ali I hear con- cerning the point, but some (hardly ‘much,’ in great part,’ as Stanley: nor do his testimonies from Thucyd. i. 23; vii. 30, bear out this meaning. It might, of course, lie beneath the surface, but is not given by μέρος tt) I cannot help believing.” 19.] δεῖ, in the divine appointment, the ἵνα which follows ex- pressing God’s purpose thereby. Our Lord had said ἄνάγκη ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα, Matt. xviii. 7:—and Justin Martyr, Tryph. 35, p. 132, quotes among His say- ings prophetic of division in the church, ἔσονται σχίσματα κ. αἱρέσεις. From the pointed manner in which δεῖ γὰρ καὶ aipéoers .,. is said, I should be inclined to think that the Apostle tacitly referred to the same saying of our Lord: for there must be (not only dissensions, but) even heresies (not in the ecclesiastical or doc- trinal sense,—as Pelag., Est., Calv., Beza, —see reff., but indicating a further and more matured separation, where not only is there present dissension, as in the Agape, but a deliberate choice and main- tenance of party distinction. It does not appear, in spite of all that has been written in Germany on the supposed parties of ch. i. 10, that such separations had yet taken place among the Corinthians. Nor even in Clement’s Epistle, forty years after this, do we find any allusion to such, but only, as here, to a general spirit of dis- Sension and variance, see chaps. iii. and xlv., pp. 218, 257. Chrys. would refer aip. only to the Agap@: ov ταύτας λέγων Tas τῶν δογμάτων, ἀλλὰ τὰς τῶν σχισμά- τῶν τούτων, p. 242,—and so Theophyl., Ec. But this hardly justifies the climax, δεῖ yap καὶ aip.) among you, that the approved 1922. q \ q , 3 e a κιμοι ἃ φανεροὶ 4 γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν. € lal rs , \ Ν ᾽ \ » ” t \ u »“ “ ὑμῶν "' ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν " κυριακὸν ἃ δεῖπνον φαγεῖν' ¢ \ A 21 ἕκαστος yap τὸ ἴδιον ἃ δεῖπνον “ .,ἃ Ν lal φαγεῖν, καὶ * ὃς μὲν Y πεινᾷ, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. ἃ \ ΄ Χ ὃς δὲ 2 μεθύει. Se 8 nie Dias » ἐσθί \ , Vere > οἰκίας " οὐκ ἔχετε " εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν ; “ ἢ τῆς d x. 571 20 f συνερχομένων οὖν « Mark vi.14. Luke viii. 17. Acts vii. 13. ch. iii. 13. . Υ ΄ xiv. 25. Phi . προλαμβάνει i 1h. Gen, Macc. Yéy TO ς \ \ 22 8 wn ΕΝ ea xiv. 23. pe 1d KAnolas τοῦ 4 θεοῦ 5 καταφρονεῖτε, καὶ gaia UVETE TOUS t Rev. i. 10 ῃ u John xiii. 2,4. xxi. 20 al. only t+. Wisd. xvii. 17 only. 8. Acts xxvii. 44, xxv. 21) al. z Acts ii. 15 reff. iv. 11 reff. @—ehexe ae ii.4 al. Prov. xiii. 13. Dan. i. 16 (v. 1 Theod.) only. Rom. xiv. 5. 2 Cor. ii. 16 al. v Mark xiv. τ Gal. νι. 1 w Acts ix. 3 reff. x == Matt. xiii. y Matt. iv. 2. Bon. xii. 20 (from Prov. a Rom. x. 18, 19. ch. ix. 4,5 only. P b Rom. d ch. i. 2 reff. e Matt. xviii. 10. Rom- f ch. i. 27, vv. 4, 5. om 2nd ev veiw C xth Orig,[ins Delarue from Philocal] Chr,[ins,] Epiph, Damasc- comm, Jer. 20. om ovy D? (and lat) ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat] Chr, : G-lat): om D-lat : 21. mposdauBave: A 46. 106-8-22?. (and F-lat) E-lat: [Ambrst Aug, ]. - jom non est vulg(and F-lat) [Ambrst]. es Tw (= το) 17, in manducandum G-lat : δε 17. for εστιν, ετι D'[-gr] F(and gaye: XR}. for ev τω, emt Tw D[-gr] F[-gr]: ad vulg in manducando D-lat 22. for εἰς To eo 0. kK. πιν., φαγειν Kat we F. [8150] (i. 6. as well as the other party, who would become manifest by their very conduct) may be made manifest among you; viz. through a better and nobler spirit being shewn by them, than by the contentious and separatists. 20. ] The same subject—resumed from the συνερχ. of ver. 18: see notes on πρῶτον. When then ye come together (are as- sembling, pres. and perhaps here, where he deals with particulars, to be pressed,— as their intention in thus assembling is blamed) to one place (reff. Acts) it is not to eat (with any idea of eating (or, there is no eating]. But Meyer, Bengel, and many others, render οὐκ ἔστιν here, ‘non licet, as in οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν and the like: De Wette, after Estius, al., as E. V., ‘this is not,’ “ cannot be called,’— ‘id quod agitis, non est.’ But the greedi- ness which is blamed, seems to refer οὐκ ἔστιν to the συνέρχεσθαι, and φαγεῖν to the motive = ἵνα φαγῆτε) the Supper of the Lord (emphasis on seep as opposed to ἔδιον below). kup. δεῖπν.} ‘ the Supper instituted by the Lord.’ This was an inseparable adjunct, in the apostolic times, to their agapz or feasts of love. Chrys. on ver. 17, and Tertull. Apol. § 39, vol. i. pp. 474 ff., give an ample descrip- tion of these feasts, which were of the nature of ἔρανοι, or mutual contributions, where each who was able brought his own portion,—and the rich, additional portions for the poor. See Xen. Mem. iii. 14, in which the circumstances bear a remarkable similarity to those in the Corinthian church. Not before this feast, as Chrys. (μετὰ τὴν τῶν “μυστηρίων κοινωνίαν ἐπὶ κοινὴν πάντες ἤεσαν εὐωχίαν, p. 240), al.,—but during and after it, as shewn by the institution, by the custom at the Pass- over, by the context here, and by the rem- nants of the ancient custom and its abuse until forbidden by the council of Carthage, —the ancient Christians partook of the Supper of the Lord. The best account of this matter is to be found in the note in Pool’s Synopsis on Matt. xxvi. 26. It was necessary for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that all should eat of the same bread and drink of the same cup; and in all probability, that a prayer should be offered, and words of consecration said, by the appointed ministers. Hence cessation of the feast itself, and solemn order and silence, would be necessitated even by the outward requirements of the ordinance. These could not be obtained, where each man was greedily devouring that which he had brought with him: where the extremes were seen, of one craving, and another being drunken. This being their practice, there could be [no possibility, and at the same time] no intention of celebrating the Lord’s Supper,—no [provision for it, nor | discernment of the solemnity of it. On the whole subject, see Stanley’s note. 21.] mpod., as in Εἰ. V., takes before another, viz. during the feast (ἐν τῷ φ.", not, at home, before coming. Obviously the ἕκαστος must be limited to the rich : the poor had no ἔδιον δεῖπνον to take, and were the losers by the selfishness of the rich. πεινᾷ] One is craving (the poor), another is drunken (the rich. There is no need to soften the meaning of μεθύει : as Meyer says, ‘‘ Paul draws the picture in strong colours, and who can say that the reality was less strong ?’’). 22.| For (a reason for the blame in the foregoing: this should not be: for) pie you no houses, to eat, &c.: meaning, ‘ home is the place to satiate the τς not the assembly of the brethren.’ Or do ye shew your contempt for (pres.) the 572 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. XI. a“ e lal ’ 4 = Μακε iti. 8 μὴ ἔχοντας ; τί εἴπω ὑμῖν ; » ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς ἐν τούτῳ ; 1. it. ὅθ. an . Ν lo / Nehviit, οὐκ ἢ ἐπαινῶ. 38 ἐγὼ yap ' παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου h ver. 2. : , a ΄ a > A \ ἜΤ ἀτοὰν ὃ καὶ iqapédwxa ὑμῖν, ὅτε ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἃ... 12 αἱ. ες / »- ” 24 δ᾽» , m "' > jer are. ἢ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, 53 καὶ ' εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλα = - lv, x a ’ Ν al ‘ont, oev καὶ εἶπεν Τοῦτο μου " ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα τὸ “ὑπερ Gospp. tae n a ’ \ eae Sint . im. δ Ρ q 25 T ὥς Rem, gg ὑμῶν" τοῦτο ποιεῖτε Peis τὴν ἐμὴν “ ἀνάμνησιν. ὡς xxii. 1 m Acts ii. 46 reff. n = |i Mt. Mk. L. Matt. Ezek. xxxvii. 11. o ellips., here q here bis. ||L. Heb. x.3only. Lev. xxiv. 7. 9. Rom. i. (8 reff.) 21. ch. xiv. 17 al.+ Wisd. xviii. 2 only. xiii. 37. John xv. 1. ch. x. 4. Gen. xii. 26,27. Exod. xii. 11. only? p = Matt. vill. 34. Mark i. 4. xiv. 9. rjjL. Matt. xxi. 30. Luke xx. 381. Rom. viii. 26. Prov, xxvii. 15. rec υμιν bef εἰπω, with KL rel syr [arm-mss] Thdrt: om vuw P eth-pl arm-ed: txt ABCDFR m 17 vulg Syr coptt goth [ Bas, Cyr-p, | Damase lat-ff. for επαινεσω, eravw (conformation to the pres follg) BF latt lat-ff: txt AC D[-gr] KLPN rel vss Chr, [ Bas, Cyr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc. 23. for amo, παρα D [ Bas-2-mss, ]- om tov DF. for κυριου, θεου F(with G-lat, but not F-lat). om τησους B 44, ev ἡ νυκτι taped. D!F, in qua nocte latt [Cypr Ambrst]. rec παρεδιδοτο, with B?LP rel Chr, Thdrt [Bas, Euthal-ms Damasce, |: txt AB'CDFKR® [17] Damasc[h,.]- ins tov bef aptov D'F. 24, rec aft εἰπεν adds λαβετε φαγετε (interpoln from Matt xxvi. 26), with C3KLP rel syrr goth [ztk-pl] (Cyr-jer,) Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] Gc, A. καὶ 9. vulg [demid harl tol] arm[-use] Ambrst; λάβετε (alone) eth[-rom]: om ABC'DFR 17 am(with fuld al) coptt arm(ed-1805) Bas, Cyr, (Ath,) Cypr,. rec aft ὑπερ ὑυμων ins κλωμενον, with C3D3FKLPN3 rel syrr goth [Bas, Chr, Euthal-ms] Thdrty,(elsw, διδομενον ἡ κλωμενον κατα Tov amoot.) Damasc, ΤῊ] Cc; θρυπτομενον D!; διδομενον coptt; quod pro vobis tradetur vulg Cypr, Ambrst-ed: om ΑΒΟΙΝῚ 17. 67? [arm-zoh] Cyr, Ath, Fulg,. om τὴν F. congregation of God (θεοῦ to express, as Bengel, ‘ dignitatem ecclesiz.’ This con- tempt was expressed by their not sharing with the congregation the portion which they brought),—and put to shame those who have not (houses to eat and to drink in, and therefore come to the daily ἀγάπαι to be fed. There is no reason for rendering with the majority of Commentators τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας, ‘the poor;’ the μὴ ἔχοντας has a distinct reference to the ἔχετε before. Meyer refers in support of the meaning, ‘the poor,’ to Wetst. on 2 Cor. viii. 13, where nothing on the subject is found: De Wette, to Luke iii. 11, where the case is as here, the preceding ἔχων being re- ferred to. The meaning is allowable, 6. g. πρὸς γὰρ Tov ἔχονθ᾽ ὁ φθόνος ἕρπει, Soph. Aj. 157: πρὸς τῶν ἐχόντων, Φοῖβε, τὸν νόμον τίθης, Eurip. Alc. 57: πότε μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἦμαρ εἶχον, εἶτ᾽ οὐκ εἶχον ἄν, where how- ever it is qualified by ἐπ᾽ ἡμαργῖ What must I say to you? Shall I praise you in this matter? Ipraise you not. (See ver. 17.) 23—25.] To shew them the solemnity of the ordinance which they thus set at nought, he reminds them of the account which he had before given them, of its INSTITUTION BY THE LORD. Matt. xxvi. 26—29. Mark xiv. 22— 25. LUKE xxii. 19, 20. 23.] For I (see ch. vii. 28; Phil. iv. 11) received from the Lord (dy special revelation, see Gal. i. 12. Meyer attempts to deny that this revelation was made to Paul himeelf, on the strength of ἀπό meaning ‘ indirect,” παρά ‘ direct’ reception from any one: but this distinction is fallacious: 6. g. 1 John i. 5, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἢ ἐπαγγελία ἣν ἀκηκό- αμεν ar αὐτοῦ. He supposes that it was made to Ananias or some other, and com- municated to Paul. But the sole reason for this somewhat clumsy hypothesis is the supposed force of the preposition, which has no existence. If the Apostle had re- ferred only to the Evangelic tradition or writings (9) he would not have used the first person singular, but παρελάβομεν. I may remark, that the similarity between this account of the Institution and that in Luke’s Gospel, is only what might be ex- pected on the supposition of a special revelation made to Paul, of which that Evangelist, being Paul's companion, in certain parts of his history availed him- self) that which I also delivered (in my apostolic testimony) to you, (viz.) that the Lord Jesus, &c. παρεδί- δετο)] the imperf.: He was being be- trayed. ‘ There is an appearance of fixed order, especially in these opening words, which indicates that this had already become a familiar formula.” Stanley. ἄρτον] not, as Meyer, ‘a loaf,’ but bread: cf. the common expression, φαγεῖν ἄρτον. 24.] On εὐχ. ἔκλα- σεν, see note, Matt. xxvi. 26. Meyer well remarks, that “the filling up of 7d ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν is to be sought in the foregoing ἔκλασεν." Hence the insertion of κλώμε-" ABCDF KLPR acdef ghklim o 17. 47 23—27. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS a. 579 ΄ \ \ , \ Ν 9 ta) / a αὕτως καὶ TO ποτήριον μετὰ TO " δειπνῆσαι, λέγων Τοῦτο 5.1. Luke Xvi. 5. ‘ “ Sail! rts 0 4 ep eat Bye Po gee Rey. iii. 20 TO TOT? PLOV 7 = KQaLV?) (AU07KY ἐστιν εν Tw εμῳ alate’ only. Pine A A ¢e / \ iti. 1, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, " ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, Ῥ εἰς THY ἐμὴν I ἀνάμνη- Tobit viii. ῷθν ε ΄ \ SEN 2 , \ ” A \ (not δὲ) only. σιν. οσωκις yap εαν ἐσθίητε TOV ἄρτον τοῦτον, KAL ὃ" 3 Cor. iis. .» vill. \ 4 , \ θ ΄ A ΄ Ww , (from Jer. TO TOTPLoV TLWNTE, TOV QAVaTOVY του KUpLoU καταγγελ- exw / e 7 ἃ XN / (xxxi.] 31). λετε, ἡ ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθη. “1 ὥςτε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ 1x15. \ A Pe ͵ > 1 , ua = ak ΕἸΣ. bevoxos TiV τὸ ἡ ποτήριον τοῦ Y κυρίου 5 ἀναξίως, * ἔνοχος ἔσται 35,35. % 19 BE Zech. ix. 11. ABCDF v here bis. Rev. xi.6 only +. Xen. Mem. iii. 4. 3. w = Acts xiii. 5 reff. x conser Banat KLPN xi. 25. Gal. iii. 19 al. y che xc. zhere only+. 2 Macc. xiv. 42 only. (-cos, bed ch, vi. 2.) a = and constr., Mark iii. 29. xiv. 641) Mt. Heb. ii. 15. James ii, 10. (Matt. v. te 4 a 21, 22 (3ce]) only. (Deut. xix. 10.) m OM. 25. for euw αἰματι, αἰματι μου ACP m 17: txt BDFKLPX rel. homeotel in A, ogaxis here and at beg of next ver. rec (for eav) av, with DFKL rel Chr, Cyr{-p, Nest-in-Cyr,]: txt BCX 17 Orig, Thdrt Euthal-ms,. (om ogakis av πινητε PLappy] ad m (Bas, Euthal-ms, Damase, ].) 26. om yap A (cf homeotel above) 238 goth eth arm. rec av, with DF KLP rel: txt ABCN a 17. for τουτον, τουτο XN}. rec aft ποτήριον ins τουτο (for uniformity), with [C%|D?-3K LPN rel tol syrr copt goth wth Chr, [Bas, Nest-in-Cyr, | Thdrt Damase, [Phot-c,] Cypr,: om ABC!D!FR! ¢ 17 latt sah arm Cyr, Damase, Cypr, Ambrst Pel. axp: BIN}. rec aft axpis ov ins av (to fill up the constr), with DK LP? [47(sic)] rel Thdrt : om ABCD!FN! 17 Bas! Chr-ms Cyr, Damase. 27. αἰσθειηται and πινηται EF. rec aft τὸν aptov ins τουτον (supplementary, or as above), with KLP rel [vulg-clem] copt goth x#th arm-mss Chr, [Euthal-ms]: om ABCDEN ὁ 17 am(with demid fuld harl tol mar) [Syr] syr sah arm-ed Clem, Bas, Ps-Ath, Thdrt Damasc, Orig-int, Cypr, [Cassiod, ]. for ἡ, καὶ A 39. 46. 109 Ject-1 syrr coptt eth Clem, Ps-Ath, Orig-int, Pel Cassiod,: txt BCDFKLPR rel latt syr-mg goth Chr [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc, Cypr, [Ambrst]. aft του κυριου αναξιως add tov κυριου 1)5[ -οΥ} LN e 47! syr goth. vor. τοῦτο trot... .| See note on Matt. ut supra. 25. |] See Luke xxii. 20. ὡςαύτ. καὶ τὸ π.] “viz. ἔλα- Bev καὶ εὐχ. ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς. These last words are implied in ἔκλασεν above.” Meyer. ἢ Kav. ὃ. ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῴ αἵμ.} is the new covenant in (ratified by the shedding of, and therefore stand- ing i, as its conditioning element) my blood: = ἐστὶν ἡ καιν. δ. ἡ ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ alu. The position of ἐστιν is no objection to this, nor the omission of the art. Meyer would render it, ‘is the N. C. by means of my blood :’ i.e. by virtue of its contents, which are my blood: and this solely on account of the position of ἐστιν. But the meaning is as harsh, as the rendering is unrequired. ὁσάκις ἐὰν wiv.| Not a general rule for all common meals of Christians ; but a precept that as often as that cup is drunk, it should be in remembrance of Him: on these last words is the emphasis: see below. 26.| yap gives an ex- planatory reason for εἰς τ. ἐμὴν ἀνάμν., viz. that the act of eating and drinking is a proclamation of the death of the Lord till His coming. ‘Yhe rendering of καταγγέλ- Aete imperative, as Theophyl.?, Luth., Grot., Rickert, is evidently wrong. The Apostle is substantiating the application of the Lord’s words by the acknowledged nature of the rite. It is a proclamation of His death : and thus is a remembrance of Him. It is so, by our making mention of in it, and seeing visibly before us and partaking of, His body broken, and His blood shed. ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ] The katayy. is addressed directly to the Corin- thians, not to them and all succeeding Christians; the Apostle regarding the coming of the Lord as near at hand, in his own time, see notes on 2 Cor. v. 1—10. Thdrt. remarks, μετὰ yap τὴν αὐτοῦ mapov- σίαν, οὐκέτι χρεία τῶν συμβόλων τοῦ σώματος, αὐτοῦ φαινομένου τοῦ σώμα- Tos’ διὰ τοῦτο εἶπεν, ἄχρις οὗ (ἂν) ἔλθῃ. The ἄν has been inserted from not being aware that its absence implies the certainty of the event. See examples in Lo- beck on Phrynichus, pp. 15, 16, note. 21.) A consequence, from the nature of the ordinance being, to proclaim the death of the Lord: the guilt of the unworthy parti- cipation of either of the elements. ‘The death of the Lord was brought about by the breaking of His body and shedding His blood: this Death we proclaim in the ordinance by the bread broken—the wine poured out, of which we partake: whoever therefore shall either eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily (see below ver. 29) shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord : i. e. “erimini et pene corporis et sanguinis Christi violati ob- noxius evit: Meyer. Such an one -pro- claims the death of Christ, and yet in an 574 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. ΧΙ. 28—34. “ f \ fal ‘/ lol / neve ch.x 16. τοῦ ἢ σώματος Kal τοῦ " αἵματος τοῦ ὃ κυρίου. c ch. ui. 13 9 28 ὃ δοκιμα- ABCDF Ι ΄ δὲ a " θ « ΄ δὸ Jeni : a oo» KLPR eft, ζέτω δὲ “ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν, Kal “οὕτως EK τοῦ APTOVavede- d reeds . 9 ͵ {ζει : ἢ, a / / - 29 td \ 5 θ 7, ἢ g hkl koe we ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω “5.0 yap ἐσθίων καὶ mo 17. reff. 47 f — Rom. ii. 2, πίνων 3 re g Acts xv. 9. James ii. 4. f “-“ e an bd θί \ , \ Β ὃ ‘ \ κριμαᾳ εαυτῷῳ εσσιξενι καὶ TTLVEL μὴ ιακρινων TO 30 ὃ \ “ b aa \ > θ a ‘oh 9 δ σῶμα. ἰὼ τοῦτο ἐν υὑμίν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ “ Appw- Job ll. h nd ae 14. Mark vi. 5,13. xvi. 18 only. 3 Kings xiv.5 A, Ald. ἄς, (see xii. 24 sq. B). only. (-τεῖν, 2 Kings xii. 15. ττημα, Sir. x. 10. -Tla, Ps. xl. 3.) recom Tov (bef aiuatos) (as unnecessary?), with a! dh k 47[sic] ΤῊ]: ins ABCDFKLPN rel Clem Ps-Ath, Bas, Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasc}. dor kupiov, xpiatov A 17 xth-rom Jer,. 28. eavrov bet avOpwros CDFP latt goth Damasc: eavtov εκαστος 17, simly 4 Orig : txt ABKLN rel syrr (coptt) eth arm Clem, Orig, Cyr, [Bas, Thdrt Damasen.,].—ins o bef ανθρ. D'. aft eavr. ins πρωτον &3 [ Epiph, }. 29. rec aft mivwy ins avatiws (gloss from ver 27), with C3DFKUPN? rel vulg syrr [copt goth «th-pl arm Bas, Chr,(aveé. τ. κυρ.4) Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase, Ambrst] : om ABC!N? 17 sah xth-rom. ree aft τὸ σωμα ins Tov Kupiov (gloss from ver 27), with C3 DFKLPN? rel [vulg-clem am? demid fuld? harl? tol syrr copt goth arm Bas, Euthal-ms Damase, | Chr, Thdrt Ambrst: om ABC!X? 17. 67? am}(with fuld! harl’) Mal.i.8. Sir. vii. 7 sah eth. unworthy spirit—with no regard to that Death as his atonement, or a proof of Christ’s love: he proclaims that Death as an indifferent person: he therefore partakes of the guilt of it. Chrysostom strikingly says, σφαγὴν τὸ TMpayua ἀπέ- φηνεν, οὐκέτι θυσίαν, p. 247, But the idea ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχέας Td αἷμα, Theophyl. (and Chrys., τί δήποτε ; ὅτι ἐξέχεεν αὐτό, καὶ σφαγ., &c., as above), is irrelevant here, see ver. 29. The Romanists absurd- ly enough defend by this # (the meaning of which i is not to be changed to kai, as is most unfairly done in our rE. V. ., and the completeness of the argument thereby destroyed ) their practice of communicating only in one kind. Translated into com- mon language, and applied to the ordinary sustenance of the body, their reasoning stands thus: ‘ Whoever eats to excess, o7 drinks to excess, is guilty of sin: therefore eating, without drinking, will sustain life.’ “98. 1 The δέ implies an opposition to, and wish to escape from, the ἔνοχος ἔσται. δοκιμ. €avt.| prove himself— examine τὴν διάνοιαν ἑαυτοῦ, as Theodor.- mops., in loc.: ascertain by sufficient tests, what his state of feeling is with regard to the death of Christ, and how far this feeling is evinced in his daily life— which are the best guarantees for a worthy participation. καὶ οὕτως | i.e. ‘after examination of himself” The case in which the self-examination ends in an un- favourable verdict, does not come under consideration, because it is assumed that such a verdict will lead to repentance and amendment. 29.] For he who eats and drinks (scil. of the bread and of the cup: certainly not, as Meyer, ‘the mere eater and drinker, he who partakes as a mere act of eating and drinking,’ which is harsh to the last degree, and refuted by the parallel, ver. 27. ἀναξίως is spurious, see var. readd.) eats and drinks judgment to himself (i. 6. brings on himself judgment by eating and drinking. κρῖμα, as is evident by vv. 30—32, is not ‘damnation’ (κατάκριμα), as rendered in our Εἰ. V.,a mis- translation, which has done infinite mis- chief), not appreciating (dy udicans, Vulg. μὴ ἐξετάζων, μὴ ἐννοῶν ὡς χρή, τὸ μέγεθος τῶν προκειμένων, μὴ λογιζόμενος τὸν ὄγκον τῆς δωρεᾶς. Chrys. Hom. xxviii. p. 251) the Body (scil. of the Lord : here standing for the whole of that which is symbolized by the Bread and the Cup, the Body and Blood. The mystery of these, spiritually present in the elements, he, not being spi- ritual, does not appreciate : and therefore, as in ver. 27, falls under the divine judg- ment, as trifling with the death of Christ. The interpretation of Stanley, “not dis- cerning that the body of the Lord is in himself and in the Christian society, and that it is as the body of the Lord, or as a member of that body, that he partakes of the bread,” is surely somewhat far- fetched, after τοῦτό μου ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα, ver. 24). 30.] Experimental proof of the κρῖμα ἑαυτῷ, from the present sick- nesses and frequent deaths. among the Corinthian _ believers. Meyer distin- guishes ἀσθενεῖς, weaklings, persons whose powers have failed spontaneously, from appworor, invalids, persons whose powers are enfeebled by sickness ; and cites Titt- mann, Synon. p. 76. ao. and app. refer to phy aiaah not (as Olsh., altern.) moral weaknesses. 31.] δέ contrasts with this state of sicknesses and deaths: it might be otherwise. This διεκρινόμεθα (parallel with δοκιμαζέτω before) should be rendered by the same word as διακρίνων, ΧΙ ‘\ OTOL, καὶ peur es Κ ἱκανοί. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 31 εὐ δὲ ! 578 ἑαυτοὺς 8 διεκρί- al ch. vii. 39 voped; οὐκ ἂν ™ ἐκρινόμεθα": 32 ™ κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ [τοῦ] κι: λον ἍΜ. κυρίου " παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ ° κατακριθῶ- μεν. ἀλλήλους § ἐκδέχεσθε. ἵνα μὴ " εἰς δ ἔλθω Υ διατάξομαι. XII. 1 Περὶ δὲ τῶν * πνευματικῶν, ἀδελφοί, ὃ οὐ θέλω p = ch. ν. 8 reff. ii, J. Esth. ii. 1. s Acts xvii. 16 reff. t ver. 21. v ver. 17 reff. w ver. 29. 1 reff. z = ch. x. 3, 4 reff. iv. 13. 34 ef τις ‘ πεινᾷ, " ἐν ἃ οἴκῳ ἐσθιέτω, "16. κρῖμα 4 συνέρχησθε. | pes pers., Rom. vill. 23 reff. m = Acts xin. 33 P ὥςτε, ἀδελφοί μου, 1 συνερχόμενοι * εἰς TO φαγεῖν 51. Rev: xviii. 8 al. n Luke xxiii. Heb. xii, 7, 10.ekike He Ὶ Σ 1 *@ ὴ exc Rev. iii ‘ Ta δὲ λοιπὰ * ὡς ἂν εἰς. Rev. iii. ἃ 1} Prov. xix. 18. ο Matt. xxvii. 3. ab viii. 10.) Rom. q ver. 17. r ver. 22. Ὁ anarth., ch. xiv. 35. Deut. xi. 19. see Mark ii. 1, x = Rom. xv. 24. Phil. ii. 23. y = ch. xvi. a Rom. i. 13. xi. 25. ch. x.1. 2Cor.i.8, 1 Thess. 31. rec (for δε) yap, with CK LPR? rel syrr coptt arm Chr[sxpe Bas, Cyr, Euthal-ms Damasc, | Thdrt Augtatic): F(not G). 32. azo F, τουτω F’, simly latt lat- ff. txt ABDFN! 17 vulg goth eth Clem, Aug). εαυτον ins του bef κυριου BCX m 17 Clem, Damasc-txt: om ADFKLP re] Ces, Chr, [ Basaiie Cyr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase, ΤῺ] Cc. aft τω κοσμω ins 34. rec aft εἰ ins de, with D*3[-gr] KLPX* rel demid syrr arm Clem, [ Chr, ] Thdrt Damasc Bede: om ABCD!FN! 17 latt coptt eth [Kuthal-ms] Cypr, Ambrst Pel. Kpiow Κ΄. διαταξωμαι ADF m 47. Cuap. XII. 1. ayvoew bef αδελφοι ov θ. v. D'[3(Tischdf)] F latt eth [Did, Ath-int, Ambrst |. before, the idea being the same. ‘ Appre- ciate,’ if etymologically understood, is the nearest to the meaning: in Latin dijudico, which the Vulg. has, is an excellent render- ing,—preserving also the ‘judico,’ so essen- tial to the following clause. In the E. V. ‘If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged,’ the tenses are wrong: it should be, ‘ If we had judged oursel ves, we should not have been judged :’ “no such punishments would have befallen us.’ Thus I wrote in some former editions : and so also Stanley. But this collocation of the (imperfect) tenses may be rendered either way. Donaldson, Gr. Gr., p. 204, renders εἴ τι εἶχεν, ἐδίδου ἄν, ‘si quid haberet, daret: and so we have it in Aischyl. Suppl. 244, καὶ τἄλλα πόλλ᾽ ἐπεικάσαι δίκαιον ἦν, εἰ μὴ παρόντι φθόγγος ἦν ὃ σημανῶν : Aschin. Ctes. p. 86, εἰ δ᾽ ἦν ἀναγκαῖον ῥηθῆναι, οὐ Δημοσθένους ἦν ὃ λόγος : and other places (Bernhardy, p. 376). But as certainly, we find the other sense: e.g. Herod. iii. 25, of Cambyses, εἰ... ἀπῆγε ὀπίσω τὸν στρατὸν... ἦν ἂν σοφὸς ἀνήρ. So that the Εἰ. V. may here be kept, if thought desirable. In John v. 46, our translators have adopted the other rendering: ‘ Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me:’ but in ib. viii. 39, 42, have rendered as here. 832.) But now that we are judged, it is by the Lord (emph.) that we are being chastised (to bring us to repent- ance), that we may not be (eternally) condemued with the (unbelieving) world. 33.] General conclusion respecting this disorder. So then (‘que cum ita sint’), my brethren (milder persuasive : as has been the assumption of the first person, vv. 31, 32), when ye are coming together to eat, wait for one another (contrast to ἕκαστος ... . προλαμβάνει, ver. 21: as Theophyl.: οὐκ εἶπεν, ἀλλήλοις μετάδοτε, ἀλλ᾽, ἐκδέχεσθε" δεικνύων ὅτι κοινά εἰσι τὰ ἐκεῖσε eishepdueva. καὶ δεῖ ἀναμένειν τὴν κοινὴν συνέλευσιν). 34. | The ἀγάπαι were not meals to satiate the bodily appetites, but for a higher and holier purpose : let the hungry take off the edge of his hunger at home: see ver. 22. τὰ δὲ λοιπά] viz. things omitted (probably matters of detail) in the above directions. Perhaps they had asked him questions respecting the most convenient time or manner of celebration of the Lord’s supper : points on which primitive practice widely differed. ὡς ἂν ἔλθω, see reff, whenever I shall have come. ὡς ἄν, as ὅτ᾽ ἄν, implies uncertainty as to the event anticipated: see Kiihner, vol. 11. p. 535, § 807. Carp. XII.—XIV.] ON THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS: espe- cially PROPHESYING, and SPEAKING WITH TONGUES. The second particular requir- ing correction in their assemblies, see ch. xi. 18, note, Chrys. well says: τοῦτο ἅπαν τὸ χωρίον σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσαφές" τὴν δὲ ἀσάφειαν ἣ τῶν πραγμάτων ἄγνοιά τε καὶ ἔλλειψις ποιεῖ τῶν τότε μὲν συμ- βαινόντων, νῦν δὲ οὐ γινομένων. Hom. xxix. p. 267. ΧΙ]. ON THE NATURE, 576 e la) > a beh. x. 19 reff. ὑμᾶς ὃ ἀγνοεῖν. ec Acts vill. 32 reff: b Μ᾽ Ν c yA ¢ jt a, ἡ εἴδωλα τὰ “ ἄφωνα ὡς 56. Acts ii. 45. iv. 35. Gen. ii. 19. e Matt. xxvi. 57 al. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. Epp., here only. ΧΙ]. 9 25 Ψ “ "6 ΟΣ \ Ἢ “οΙΟΟΤΕ OTL OTE: ὦ V?) TE, 7 pos Ta d av ἤγεσθε “ ἀπαγόμενοι. 3. διὸ Deut. xxviii. 37. 2. rec om ote (either a mistake, or a corrn to help the constr: the same of the omn of ort), with F[-gr K-marg(Tischdf)] Ὁ ἃ 1 D-lat Syr copt Ambrst: om or: Καὶ in Thdrt{-ed Euthal-ms| Damase Aug,: txt ABC D[-gr] ΠΡῸΣ rel vulg G-lat syr (sal) arm [zth(olim cum) Bas, Did, Chr, Thdrt-ms Ath-int, Vig, Pel]. ἀμορφα F[-gr, ad simulacrorum formationes G-lat]. Tischdf)] m: ascendebatis Aug.) INTENT, AND WORTH OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS IN GENERAL. 1—3. | The foundation of all spiritual utterance is the confession of Jesus as the Lord: and without the Spirit, no such confession can be made. 1.1 δέ transitional. Some have thought tha the Corinthians had referred this question to the Apostle’s decision: but from the ov θέλω ὑμ. ἀγνοεῖν, it rather looks as if, like the last, it had been an abuse which he had heard of, and of his own instance corrects. τ. πνευματικῶν | Most likely neuter, as ch. xiv. 1, spiritual gifts: so Chrys., Theophyl., @c., Beza, Calov., Est., al., De Wette, and Meyer: —not mase., as ch. xiv. 87: so Grot., Hammond, al., and Locke, who maintains that the subject of this section is not the things, but the persons, quoting ch. xiv. 5. But surely the things are the main subject, enounced here, vv. 4—11, and treated of through the rest of the chapter ; the inspired persons being mentioned only incidentally to them. Others, as Storr, Billroth, Wieseler cited by Meyer, and De W., limit τὰ mv. to the speaking with tongues, which indeed is mainly treated of in the latter part of the section (see ch. xiv. 1): but here the gifts of the Spirit generally are the subject. ov θέλω up. ayv. | Theodor.-mops. cited by Meyer : θέλω ὑμᾶς Kal τῶν πνευματικῶν χαρι- σμάτων εἰδέναι τὴν τάξιν, ὥςτε βούλομαί τι καὶ περὶ τούτων εἰπεῖν. See reff. 2.] Reason why they wanted instruction concerning spiritual gifts —because they once were heathen, and could not therefore have any experience in spiritual things. Thus Meyer, and so far rightly: but the stress of this reason lies in the words ἄφωνα and ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε, which he has not sufficiently noticed :—Ye know (that) when ye were Gentiles (the construction is an anacoluthon, beginning with οἴδατε ὅτι, and then as if οἴδατε ὅτι had been merely a formula for ‘ye know,’ passing into the construction so common, that of placing ὅτε after stich verbs as μέμνημαι, οἶδα, ἀκούω, and the like, an ellipsis taking place of τοῦ χρόνου, as Lysias actually fills it up in one place, ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου μνησθέντας, ὅτε for αφωνα, (ἀνήγεσθε B® G[-corr(appy, . . . « in Poliuch. (περὶ δημεύσεως x.7.A.), p. 151, 34. Thus 1]. ξ. 71, ἤδεα μὲν yap ὅτε πρόφρων Δαναοῖσιν ἄμυνεν : Plato, Menon, p. 79, μέμνησαι ὅτ᾽ ἐγώ σοι ἄρτι ἀπεκρινάμην. See more examples in Kiihner’s Gr. Gramm. ii. 480) led about (Lor, carried away | aay. not necessarily, ‘led wrong ;’ and the context seems rather to favour the idea of being ‘ ded at will,’ blindly transported hither and thither,— and so De W., and Estius, “ qualiter- cunque, temere, pro nutu ducentium, et huc illue illos cireumagentium, abductos fuisse”) to idols which were without utterance (‘the God in whom you now believe is a living and speaking God— speaking by his Spirit in every believer: how should you know any thing of such spiritual speech or gifts at all, who have been accustomed to dumb idois ?’), just as ye happened to be led (scil., on each occa- sion: the force of & being to indicate the indefiniteness, i. 6. in this case, the’ repe- tition of the act : so Xen. Anab. i. 5. 2: of μὲν ὄνοι, ἐπεί τις διώκοι (whenever any followed them) προδραμόντες ἂν εἱστή- κεισαν,---αὐα Eurip. Phen. 401: ποτὲ μὲν ἐς ἦμαρ εἶχον, εἶτ᾽ οὐκ εἶχον ἄν. See other examples in Kiihner, ii. 98, 94). These last words seem to me to imply the absence of all fixed principle in the oracles ot Heathendom, such as be is about to an- nounce as regulating and furnishing the criterion of the spiritual gifts of Christen- dom. This ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε might take a man to contradictory oracles, the whole system being an imposture—their idols being void of all power of utterance, and they being therefore imposed on by the fictions of men, or evil spirits, who led them. Chrys., (c., Theophyl., make this refer to the difference between the heathen μάντις, who was possessed by an evil spirit, and therefore εἵλκετο ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος δεδεμένος, οὐδὲν εἰδὼς ὧν λέγει, and the Christian προφήτηςκ,--- 10}. however is entirely unwarranted by the context. 8.1 The neyative and positive eriteria of inspiration by the Spirit of God: viz. the rejection, or confession, of Jesus as the Lora. διό, ‘ because ye Oo «Ἀν so 2.--6. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ A. 17 f 5 7 e A er ’ \ g ° δ Vd ~ A , εὐ πε 1 τὲ) γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὃτι οὐδεὶς 8 ἐν δ πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει Tee ΄ aw ‘ 7 >, -“ ΄ Γ © Ανάθεμα ᾿Ιησοῦς: “αὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν Κύριος Ron in i, ἯΙ A > \ g ar ΄ LOS, 4. i§ , δὲ k pete: τ ὁ ησοῦς, εἰ μὴ ὅ ἐν ὅ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. ιαιρέσεις δὲ δ χα- κἰιν 2. , \ \ » ‘ lal ν᾿ / = rc eye ρισμάτων εἰσίν, TO δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα: ὅ καὶ | διαιρέσεις | διακο- Eeee tz a 9... ἢ ΝΥ ar sie ἃ ΄ K€ \ i § , m2 10al. Mic. νιῶν εἰσίν, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κύριος" ὃ καὶ | διαιρέσεις ™ ἐνεργη- i.e om, 1%. reff. i here (3ce) only. 1 Chron. xxvi.1. 2 Chron. viii. 14. Ezra vi. 18. (-pecy, ver. 11.) k = Rom. (vy. 15. vi. 23. xi. 29) xii. 6 al. 1 Acts i. 17. vic lal: m ver. 10 only ft. 3. om θεου P. om λαλων D F[-gr Hil, Victorin, 1. (insd by F-lat [vulg spec, Ambrst ] Augatic-) rec τἥσουν (corrn to bring it into government by λέγει, whereas it is an oratio directa), with D[G|KLP rel harl syr-mg-gr sah Orig, Chr, Thdrt Damase Novat, Hil-ed,: moov F 17? vulg [spec Ath-int, Did-int, Hil-ms Ambrst]: txt ABCN 17! syrr(appy) copt eth arm Cyr-p, { Euthal-ms]. rec Kuplov τησουν (see above), with 1) F[-gr] KLP rel syr [copt] arm Ath,[-int, Bas,(and mss,) Dial-trin, Kpiph,] Mae, Chr, Thdrt [Damase] Orig-int, Did-int, [Ambrsezpe Ambrst Aug,]: txt ABCR 17 vulg(and F-lat) Syr sah eth Orig,[-int,(but mss vary)] Did-gr, Bas, Cyr, 9 Epiph, Gennad {Euthal-ms Ambr, Aug, Tich, ]. 4. tor δε, 5 B (Orig, Eus,]. 5. fom 1st και P. | for καὶ ο, o δε 17. 41. 73. 115-9 vulg D-lat [F-lat spec] Syr arm Ens, Ath,{(but mss vary)-int, Bas, Chr,] Epiph, Cyr Iren-int{-mss,] Orig-int, [ Hil,(txt,)]}: om o A!{(corrd eadem manu, appy) kj: txt is cited by Orig, Thdrt, Damase Ce Iren-int-mss Aug. have been hitherto in ignorance of the matter. ἐν mv. θεοῦ ἐν amv. ay. The Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost, is the Power pervading the speaker, the Element in which he speaks. SoSchéttgen, on Matt. xxii. 43, quotes from the Rabbis, ‘ David saw wT mI, in the Holy Spirit.’ λαλῶν λέγει) On the difference of meaning between λαλῶ, ‘ to discourse,’ ‘ to speak, and λέγω, ‘to say,’ the former of the act of utterance absolutely, the latter having for its object that which is uttered, see note on John viii. 25. In all the seeming exceptions to this, λαλῶ may be justified as keeping its own meaning of ‘to discourse :’ we may safely deny that it is ever ‘to say’ simply. ἀνάθ. Ἴησ.} Jesus (not Christ, the Name of office, itself in some measure the object of Juith,— but Jesus, the personal Name,— the historical Person whose life was matter of fact: the curse, and the confession, are in this way far deeper) is accursed (see ref. Rom. note). So «vp. Ἴησ., Jesus is Lord (all that is implied in κύριος, being here also implied: and we must not forget that it is the LXX verbum solenne for the Heb. JEHOVAH). By these last words the influence of the Holy Spirit is widened by the Apostle from the supernatural gifts to which perhaps it had been improperly con- fined, to the faith and confession of every Christian. It is remarkable that in 1 John iv. 1,2, where a test to try the spirits is given, the human side of this confession is brought out,—Inoobv χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ €AnaAvééra,—John having to deal with tliose who denied the reality of the Incarna- tion. Or also, as Bengel: “ Paulus prebet criterium veri contra gentes: Johannes, Vor. Li. contra falsos prophetas.” 4—6.] But (as contrasted to this absolute unity, in ground and principle, of all spiritual influ- ence) there are varieties (in reff. 2 Chron. and Ezra, used of the courses or divisions of the priests) of gifts (χαρίσματα = eminent endowments of individuals, in and by which the Spirit indwelling in them manifested Himself,—the gavépwots τοῦ πνεύματος in each man ;—and these either directly bestowed by the Holy Ghost Himself, as in the case of healing, miracles, tongues, and prophesying, or previously granted them by God in their unconverted state, and now inspired, hallowed, and poten- tiated for the work of building up the church,—as in the case of teaching, exlor- tation, knowledge. Ofall these gifts, fuith working by love was the necessary sub- stratum and condition. See Neander, Pi. ἃ. Leit. pp. 232 ff.), but the same Spirit (as their Bestower,—see the sense filled up in ver. 11): 5.] and there are varieties of ministries (appointed services in the church, in which as their channels of manifestation the χαρίσματα would work), and the same Lord (Christ, the Lord of the church, whose it is to appoint all ministrations in it. These διακονίαι must not be narrowed to the eccle- siastical orders, but kept commensurate in extent with the gifts which are to find scope by their means, see vv. 7—10): and varieties of operations (effects of divine ἐνέργειαι : not to be limited to miraculous effects, but understood again commensu- rately with the gifts of whose working they are the results), and the same Gop. Who works all of them in all persons («IL the χαρίσματα in all who are gifted). Thus Pp p 978 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOTS A. Are ΄ » / Ng Bs ON θ Ν = n 2 - 9 a op / 3 nver.1l. Rom. LATMV εἰσιν, Καὶ O AUTOS VEOS O ἐνεργῶν Ta TAVT@ ἐν ABCDF vii. 5 reff. a Spas \ 7 , a ΄ o=ch.vil6 Ρ πᾷσιν. Ἷ ἑκάστῳ δὲ δίδοται ἡ 4 φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος . xv. 25 = \ , e ‘ \ al ’ Povh 23. Ἰ πρὸς TO Sauudépov. 8'w μὲν yap διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος δί- : . ἊΝ / \ , , a2Cor.iv.2 Sota" λόγος YY σοφίας, ᾿ ἄλλῳ δὲ " λόγος τ᾿ γνώσεως ¥ κατὰ only t. r= ch. vi. 5. vii. 35. x. 11 al. s Acts xx. 20 reff. t usage, here only. see Matt. mit. 4 Ὁ Mk. ch. iii. 4. ver. 28. u = and constr., Acts xiii. 26 reff. v = ch. ii. 6 ἃ]. w Prov. xxx. (xxiv.) 3. x = 2Cor. σι. 6al. y = καθὼς B., ver. 11. 6. rec ο δε avtos (corrn to express contrast, It can hardly have been altered to και Ὁ to conform to the precedg clause, the first remaining τὸ δε), with AK LPR rel Jatt syrr sah arm Eus, Epiph, Cyr, [Ath,-int, Did, Bas, Chr, Orig-int,] Iren-int, Hil; [Ambrst AUgalic ], deus hic idem est copt; o avtos δε DE: txt BC m Orig, [ Euthal-ms }. rec ins εστι bef eos, with KLN?3 rel (syr) Orig, Thdrt Damase ; aft evepyev B [Cyr- ms-p,]; ins χριστὸς bef devs ὁ: om ACDFPN! in 17 latt (Syr) sah arm Eus, Ath,{-int, Did, Epiph, Euthal-ms] Bas, Chr, ΤῊ] Iren-int Orig-int Hil, 8. homeotel aAAw to aAAw next ver Kk. we have Gop THE FaTHER, the First Source and Operator of all spiritual influ- ence in all: Gop THE Son, the Ordainer in His Church of all ministries by which this influence may be legitimately brought out for edification : Gop rHE Hoty Guost, dwelling and working in the church, and effectuating in each man such measure of His gifts as He sees fit. 7—11.] These operations specified in their variety, but again asserted to be the work of one and the same Spirit. 7.1 To each individual, however (the emphasis on ἑκάστῳ, as shewing the character of what is to follow, viz. individual distinction of gifts. δέ again contrasted with the 6 αὐτός of the last verse ; though the work- ings of One God, One Lord, One Spirit, they are bestowed variously on each man), is given the manifestation of the Spirit (not, as Meyer, al., the means of mani- Sesting the Spirit which dwells in him (gen. obj.): but, as De W., the mani- JSestation by which the Spirit acts (gen. subj.); it is a general term including χαρίσματα, διακονίαι, and ἐνεργήματα) with a view to profit (with the profit of the whole body as the aim: see reff.). 8—10.] It has been disputed, whether or not any studied arrangement of the gifts of the Spirit is here found. The most recent and best advocates of the two views are Meyer and De Wette. Meyer gives the following arrangement: grounding it mainly on what he believes to be the intentional use of ἑτέρῳ δέ as distinguished from ἄλλῳ δέ, and pointing out a new category :—I. gifts having reference to intellectual power : (1) λόγος σοφίας. (2) λόγος γνώσεως. 11. (ἑτέρῳ δέν) gifts, whose condition is an exalted faith (glaubens- heroigémus) : (1) faith itself. (2) practical workings of the same, viz. (a) ἰάματα. (Ὁ) δυνάμεις. (3) oral working of the same, viz. προφητεία. (4) critical working of the same, the διάκρισις πνευμάτων. ILL. gifts having reference to the γλῶσσαι: (1) om ta Di, speaking with tongues : (2) interpretation of tongues. To this De Wette objects, (1) that ᾧ μέν, ἑτέρῳ δέ, ἑτέρῳ δέ, do not stand with any reference to one another, but ἑτέρῳ δέ 1s in each ease opposed to the ἄλλῳ δέ which immediately precedes it,and followed by an ἄλλῳ δέ similarly opposed to it: therefore neither can the one be- token the genus, nor the other the species. (2) If any thing could be relied on as mark- ing a division, it would be the repeated κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πν., ἐν τῷ αὖτ. πν., and the concluding πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ver. 11: but even thus we get no satisfactory partition, for in ver. 10 dissimilar gifts are classed together. (3) We must not look for a classification, for the catalogue is incom- plete, see ver. 28. (4) The classification given is objectionable. Speaking with tongues is plainly more nearly allied to προφητεία than mpo¢. to gifts of healing: and the two, tongues and prophesying, are subsequently treated of together. Besides which, Kling (Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 482) rightly remarks, that both διάκρισις mv. and ἑρμηνεία yA. have reference to the understanding. I am inclined to think that De W.’s objections are valid, as applied to a rigorous arrangement like Meyer’s ; but that at the same time there is a sort of arrangement, brought about not so much designedly, as by the falling together of similiar terms,—Adyos σοφ., λόγος yv.,— γένῃ γλωσσῶν, épu. γλωσσῶν. Unques- tionably, any arrangement must be at fault, which proceeding on psychological grounds, classes together the speaking with tongues and the interpretation of tongues : the working of miracles, and the discern- ment of spirits. I believe too that Meyer’s distinction between ἑτέρῳ δέ and ἄλλῳ δέ is imaginary: see Matt. xvi. 14; Heb. x1. 35, 36. 8.] yap appeals to matter of fact, as the ground of the assertion in. ver. 7, both as to the δίδοται and as to the πρὸς τὸ συιιφέρον. ᾧ μὲν... . ἄλλῳ δέ, ἃ loose construction, as in ver. 38, KLPxa hedef ghkl ui o 17- 47 a — 7—10. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT®S A. 579 x ’ \ a 9 t e ΄ δὲ ͵ 7 ? “ a , A 7 , τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, 9 ‘eTépw [δὲ] πίστις 5 ἐν τῷ " αὐτῷ * πνεύ- τνετ. 3. ” \b / x ce? ΄, 22 nis ci τ ε ae σβτα His ματι, ἄλλῳ δὲ "χαρίσματα “ἰαμάτων *év τῷ “ἐνὶ “πνεύματι. ὃ rv 2 “0 τ. er. 10 ἄλλῳ δὲ 4 ἐνεργήματα “ δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ δὲ f προφητεία, τὶ. ixxxi) ‘ L 6 ™ ” \ / , pF \: , 2 é NEES ἄλλῳ δὲ & διακρίσεις ἢ πνευμάτων, ἑτέρῳ δὲ | γένη * γλωσ- , Activ. 22.) 6 = Acts viii. 13 reff. f = Rom. xii. 6. ch. xiii. 2 al. only. Job xxxvii. 16 only. (-κρίνειν, ch. vi. 5.) 1. 3 Kings xxii. 21. i = Matt. xiii. 47. iv.6 al.) Gen. i. 11, ἄς. k Acts ii. 4 reff. 9. om Ist δε BD! FN! [47] latt Syr [arm(ut sepe, Treg)] Clem, Orig,[-c,-int,] Eus, { Did-int, Hil, Ambrst Auguic|: ins AC D? 3[-gr | LPN3 rel syr coptt Orig, Eus, Cs, Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt, (Did,{-int,]) Damase Th], Hil, Aug). om 2nd δε DF latt Syr [arm] Eus, [Hil,]. rec for ev, avtw (conformation to foregoing), with C3 D[-gr] F[-gr] ΚΙἼΡΝ rel (syrr) copt Clem [Cyr-jer, Bas-ed, |] Chr, Thdrt { Hil-ms, | : txt AB a 17 vulg(and F-lat, but over F-gr eodem is written) D-lat Did, [ Bas-mss, Eathal-ms Damase Hil,(and ms,) Ainbrsepe AUZsepe].—om ev Tw evs mv. ΟἹ Kus, Tert, g Rom. xiv. 1. Heb. ν. 14 ἢ = ch. xiv. 32. 1Tim.iv.1. 1 John iv. Mark ix. 29 (|| Mt.]. ver. 28. ch. xiv. 10 only. (Acts Cassiod. 10. om Ist δὲ D'F latt [arm] Clem, Hil,. Aug, al). δυνσμεως DF. evepyeta DF, operatio latt { Hil, } (not om δὲ (2nd, 3rd, and 4th) BDF latt Clem, | Tert, Ambrst ]: om 4th δὲ ΡΝ] Cas : ins ACK LN? rel syrr copt [Eus, Bas, Cyr-jer, Euthal- ms! Chr, Thdrt Damase. Orig[-c, | Bas, [Tert, Hil]. λόγος σοφίας. . . λόγος γνώσεως] What is the distinction? According to Neander, σοφία is the s&ill, which is able to reduce the whole practical Christian life into its due order in accordance with its foundation principles (see Pfl. u. Leit. p- 247) ;—yvoots, the theoretical insight ‘into divine things: and similarly Olsh. and Billroth. But Bengel, al., take them conversely, yvao. for the practical, vod. tor the theoretical. Both, as De W. re- marks, have their grounds in usage: σοφία is practical Col. i. 9, as is γνῶσις Rom. xv. 14, but they are theoretical respectively in ch. i. 17 ff. and viii. 1. Estius explains λόγος σοφίας, ‘gratiam de iis que ad doctrinam religionis ac pietatis spectant disserendi ex causis supremis,’—as ch. ii. 6 f.:—and Ady. γνώσεως, he says, “ gratia est disserendi de rebus Christiane re- ligionis, ex iis que sunt humane scientiz vel experientiz.” Meyer says, “ σοφία is the higher Christian wisdom (see on ch. ii. 6) in and of itself ;—so that discourse which expresses its truths, makes them clear, applies them, &c. is λόγος σοφίας. But this does not necessarily imply the speculative penetration of these truths,— the philosophical treatment of them by deeper and more scientific investigation, in other words, γνῶσις : and discourse which aims at this is λόγος γνώσεως." This last view is most in accordance with the sub- sequently recognized meaning of γνῶσις and γνωστικός, and with the Apostle’s own use of σοφία in the passage referred to, ch. ii. 6. κατὰ τ. av. mv.] according to the disposition (see ver. 11) of the same Spirit. 9.] πίστις, as Chrys.: πίστιν ov ταύτην λέγων Thy τῶν δογμάτων, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῶν σημείων, περὶ ἣς φησιν Ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς κόκκυν σιν. κιτιλ. (Matt. xvii. -in the Spirit. διακρισις C(?) DIF PN 17 latt Syr [sah-mnt arm] Clem om 5th δε D! latt [Tert, Hilaiic (not Jer,) ]. 20)" καὶ of ἀπόστολοι δὲ περὶ αὐτῆς ἠξίουν λέγοντες ΠρόΞςθες ἡμῖν πίστιν (Luke xvii. ὅ). αὕτη γὰρ μήτηρ τῶν σημείων ἐστίν. Hom. xxix. p. 263. This seems to be the meaning here; a faith, enabling a man to place himself beyond the region of mere moral certainty, in the actuai realization of things believed, in a high and unusual manner. ἐν τ. QUT. TY. | in, i.e. by and through, as the effective cause and the medium. χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων] gifts of (miraculous) healings ; plur., to-indicate the ditferent kinds of diseases, requiring different sorts of heal- ing. év, see above. 10. évepy. Suv.] operations of miraculous powers (in general). προφητεία) speaking Meyer gives an excellent definition of it: “discourse flowing from the revelation and impulse of the Holy Spirit, which, not being attached to any particular office in the church, but im- provised,—disclosed the depths of the human heart and of the divine counsel, and thus was exceedingly effectual for the enlightening, exhortation, and consolation of believers, and the winning of unbelievers. The prophet differs from the speaker with tongues....in that he speaks with the understanding, not ecstatically : from the διδάσκαλος, thus: —6é μὲν προφητεύων πάντα ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος φθέγγεται" ὃ δὲ διδάσκων ἐστὶν ὅπου καὶ ἐξ οἰκείας δια- λέγεται, as Chrys. on ver. 28.” (Hom. Xxxii. p. 286.) διακρίσεις mv. | dis- cernings of spirits: i.e. the power of distinguishing between the operation of the Spirit of God and the evil spirit, or the unassisted human spirit: see 1 John iv. 1, and compare mposéxovtes πνεύμασιν πλάνοις, 1 Tim.iv.1. The exercise of this power is alluded to ch. xiv. 29. γένη ΡΡ ἃ > r 580 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. pH i - δ / - -" la x -" teh.ziv.26 σῶν, ἄλλῳ δὲ |! ἑρμηνεία " γλωσσῶν: |) πάντα δὲ ταῦτα only+. Sir. m2 A \ na ‘ ἊΝ Ἢ γν a 0 § a Ρ ING tat xlvii. evepyel TO “εν Καὶ TO αὐτὸ Treva, αιρουν Lola oOo . ΄ ΄ \ 4 ζ / \ A (-evew, Heb. ἑκάστῳ 3 καθὼς *BovreTar. 13 "καθάπερ yap τὸ σῶμα = ‘ f bf \ , Ν v ͵ \ \ , - τεὐτῆς, ἢ. ἕμ ἐστιν, καὶ * μέλη πολλὰ ἔχει, πάντα δὲ τὰ ' μέλη τοῦ mver.6. Rom. , a ol ve ’ rn “ ν. Κ vii 5 τῇ. σώματος, πολλὰ ὄντα, ἕν ἐστιν σῶμα, οὕτως καὶ ὁ χρι- n ch. xi. 5 only. . 2 x 5 » ¥ a Ξ ΣΧ: 13 Ν Ν u 2 \ γ a Ι ike αν, r στος. καὶ γὰρ " ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἕν 7. . a ᾿] / ΕΣ ’ - ” ad Μ only: 5" σῶμα YY ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε ᾿Ιουδαῖοι εἴτε “EAAnvEs, © εἴτε (-ρεσις, vv. ᾿ a ’ 7, ΄, A r y 45,6)’ να δοῦλοι " εἴτε "" ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἕν πνεῦμα ἡ ἐποτίσθη- γ. 2 a Swe: iv. 34only. Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 34. q = Mark iv. 33. Acts xi. 29. Num. xxvi. 54, rof God, Heb. vi. 17. Jamesi.18. 2 Pet. iii. 9only. 1 Kings ii. 25. s Rom. iv. 6 reff. t Rom. vi. 13 reff. u Matt. iii. 11. Acts i. 5. xi. 16. v Acts viii. 16 reff. w Eph. vi. δ, Col. iii. 11. 2 Thess. ii. 15. x as above (w). Gal. iii. 28. x. 38. Luke xii. 47, Heb. vi. 9. om adAw δε epunvera γλωσσων (homeotel) BK dk [ Eus, ]. Tischdf (ed 7 [and 87) says “cf xii. 30; wiv. 5, 13, 27, 28”) A D'(adds sioned by 5? Rey. vi. 15. xiii. 16. xix. 18. Rev. xvi. 9: y Rom. xii. 20 reff. acc., see Mark y Ps. Ixviii. 21. Winer, edn. 6, $ 32. δ. διερμηνεια (mistake occa- yevn): txt CD3FKLPN rel Clem Cas Cyr-jer Chr (Bas, Kuthal-ms] Thdrt Damase. 11. ταυτα δε παντα DF latt copt (Just, Did,(txt,) Ath,(txt,) Cyr, Chr,(txt,) Thdrt, ] Orig, Hil, [Ambrst]. om to (bef év) D'F arm Orig, Chr, [Sevrn-in-Chr, ]. om ida (D!)F latt Syr [arm Bas,] (Orig,) Epiph, Orig-int, Did-int, Hil, [Jersepe Ambrst ].—for S:aipouv 1510, διερουμενα D} 12. om yap K a eth arm; d has it in red. F[-gr] Hip, Hil Tich,. for και μελη, wean Se D}(and lat) rec exer bef πολλα, with DFKL rel latt syrr goth Chr, Thdrt, [Damasc] Hil Ambrst: txt ΑΒΟΡΝ m 17 Hip, Thdrt, Jer,. X. ins ex bef του σωμ. D}(and lat) goth Hil Ambrst Tich. _ BeAnNAX(sic) rec aft σωματος ins tov evos (gloss), with D3 rel [sah-mnt] goth Chr, Thdrt, Damase (ce Hil [Ambrst Tich] 13. om ev F[-gr]. : om ABCFKLPR! ἃ vulg syrr copt eth arm [Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrty., Jer, Augatic }. (17 def [but there is not room for the addn ].) for xp., κυριος C. rec ins εἰς bef ἐν mvevua (appy to conform to the first member of the sentence), with D3KL rel vulg(and F-lat) Thdrt, Vig: om (A)BCD!FPX ἃ 17. 47 am(with demid [fuld] harl tol) D-lat syrr copt goth zth arm Ps-Ign, Ath, Did, Chr, [Euthai-ms Ambrst Aug, ]. for πνευμα εποτισθημεν, σωμα ἐσμεν A: for πνευμα, πομα ἃ ἔ gl syr-mg-gr: πν. εφωτισθημεν L. 21. 39. 116. γλωσσῶν kinds of tongues, i.e. the power of uttering, in ecstasy, as the mouthpiece of the Spirit, prayer and praise in languages unknown to the utterer,—or even in a spiritual language unknown to man. See this subject dealt with in the note on Acts ii. 4, and ch. xiv. 2 ff. ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν] the power of giving a meaning to what was thus ecstatically spoken. This was not always resident in the speaker himself: see ch. xiv. 13. 11.] The Spirit is the universal worker in men of all these powers, and that according to His own pleasure: see above on vv. 4—6. ἰδίᾳ, ‘seorsim, respectively, or ‘severally, as E. V. This unity of the source of all spiritual gifts, in the midst of their variety, he presses as against those who valued some and undervalued others, or who depreciated them all. 12—30. | As the many members of the body com- pose an organic whole, and all belong to the body, none being needless, none to be despised ; so also those who are variously gifted by the Spirit compose a spiritual organic whole, the mystical body of Christ. First, however, vv. 12, 18, this likeness of the mystical Christ to a bedy is enounced, and justified by the facts of our Baplism. 12.] The organic unity of the various members in one body. is predicated also of CHRIST, i.e. the Church as united in Him, see ch. vi. 15. The γάρ confirms the preceding ἕν x. τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, by an analogy. By the repetition,—7d σῶμα, .++.T00 σώματος ..., σῶμα, the unity of the members as an organic whole is more strongly set forth. 13.] This shewn from our being baptized into one body, and receiving one Spirit. For in (see on ver. 9) one Spirit also (the empha- sis on ἑνὶ πν., to which words καί belongs) we all were baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or freemen; and we all were made to drink of one Spirit (or, ‘a// watered by one Spirit,’ viz. the water of baptism, here taken as identical with the Spirit whose influence accompanied it). So (un- derstanding the whole verse of baptism) Chrys., Theophyl., Ee., Rickert, Meyer, De Wette. Luther, Beza, Calv., Estius, Grot., al., refer the latter half to the Lord’s Supper: and this is mentioned by Chrys. and Theophyl. :—-Billroth and Olsh. to the abiding influence of the Spirit in strength- ening and refreshing. But the aor. émro- τίσθημεν, referring to a fact gone by, is 11---91. μεν. 15 ὟΝ ” e \ ¢/ ᾽ 3.9% , > Z ay Aha ἐν A ὃ ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ ποὺς “Ott οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ * εἰμὶ " ἐκ TOU y ? \ a) > » > a σώματος, οὐ "παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ “ἔστιν “ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ; 2%. ᾿ \ \ " Ὁ \ 16 καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ TO” ods"Ore οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ * εἰμὶ >= here bis ᾽ lal , > \ la) » A 2 ἐκ TOU σώματος, οὐ ὃ Tapa τοῦτο οὐκ * ἔστιν ὅ ἐκ τοῦ σώ- ἄπο ὧν Ν a ’ , lal patos; 17 εἰ ὅλον TO σῶμα ὀφθαλμός, ° ποῦ ἡ “ ἀκοή; εἰ e ’ ΄ a e v lal Ν \ ὅλον ἃ ἀκοή, “ ποῦ ἡ “ ὄσφρησις ; 18! νῦν δὲ ὁ θεὸς 8 ἔθετο \ Xr. h ἃ h “ > “ 3’ A 4 i 0 \ 10 , τὰ μέλη, " ἕν " ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι | καθὼς ἠθέλη- σεν. 90 f poy δὲ πολλὰ μὲν μέλη, ἕν δὲ σῶμα. reff. e here only t. h Acts xvil. 27 reff. 15. for ἐστιν, εἰμι(ῦ) N'(but corrd). 16. om και D'[and lat]. i ver. il reff. 9 \ 4 ‘ ἃ , = A 19 εἰ δὲ ἦν [ἢ τὰ] " πάντα ἕν μέλος, ° ποῦ TO σῶμα; c ellips., Rom. iii. 27. ch. i. 20. f = Luke xi. 39 al. om ott P (Chr-ms ]. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. 55] κ ι \ A , - Q 14. καὶ yap τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἕν * μέλος, ἀλλὰ πολλά. 2 of things, — here 4 times only. of; ers., Matt. xxvi. 73. Johni. Acts xxi. 8al. Obad. 11. only. Polyb. BEM, hen ἐο. παρὰ τί νῦν σφαλεί- σαν. Demosth. 545: 22, ταῦτα πέ- πονθεν... παρὰ τὴν πενίαν. Winer, eda » 7, \ iner, - 21 οὐ δύναται δὲ , 63498. Ὁ Rom. xi. 8 d = 2 Pet. ii. 8. Xen. Mem. i. 4. 6. g = Acts xx. 28. ver. 28, Gen. xvii. 5. k ver. 6. : 17. ins ὁ bef οφθαλμος D!. 18. rec νυνι, with CD?3KLPR rel Chr, {Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase Gic: txt ΑΒ} 1 Thi, [ins εἰς bef ev εκαστον K. | 19. om τα BF 17: ins ACDKLPR rel [Chr Euthal-ms Thdrt, Damasc]. 20. νυνι FP 32. 47. 67. 80. 114 Chr, 'Thl. [arm] Aug». om wey B D}(and lat) 73. 114 goth 21. om δε (as being in the way? but it brings out a contrast to the unity just in- sisted on) ACFP d m 17. 47 fuld(and demid) Syr copt [eth arm] (Orig) Bas (‘Thdrt,) {Euthal-ms Aug,] Jer: ins BDKLN rel vulg syr goth Chr, Thdrt Damasc Thi (ec Ambrst Aug, Pel. fatal to both these latter interpretations : besides that it would be harsh to under- stand even εἰς ἕν mv. ἐποτίσθ. (see var. readd.) and impossible to understand ἕν πν. ἐποτ., of the cup in the Lord’s Supper. 14. Analogy. by which this mul- tiplicity in unity is justified : it is even so in the natural body,—which, though one, consists of many members. The object of the continuation of the simile seems to be, to convince them that their various gifts had been bestowed by God on them as members of the Christian body, and that they must not, because they did not happen to possess the gifts of another, consider themselves excluded from the body,—in which the weaker as well as the stronger, the less comely as well as the more comely members were necessary. The student will remember the fable spoken by Mene- nius Agrippa to the mutinous plebs in Livy ii. 32. The passage is also illustrated by Seneca de Ira, ii. 31, ‘Quid si nocere velint manus pedibus, manibus oculi? Ut omnia inter se membra consentiunt, quia singula servari totius interest: ita homines singulis parcent, quia ad celum geniti sumus: salva autem esse societas nisi amore et custodia partium non potest :’—— and by Mare. Antonin. ii. 1, where in his morning meditations on the duty of re- pressing anger through the day, he says, γεγόναμεν yap πρὸς συνεργίαν, ὡς πόδες, ὡς χεῖρες, ὡς βλέφαρα, ὡς οἱ στοῖχοι τῶν ἄνω καὶ τῶν κάτω ὀδόντων" τὸ οὖν ἂντι- πράσσειν ἀλλήλοις, παρὰ φύσιν. See also id. vii. 13: Clem. ad Cor. ὁ, xxxvil. p. 284: and other examples in Wetstein. 15.] The ὅτι is rightly rendered in Εἰ. V. because. ov παρὰ τ. «.7.A. | These words [may be taken, here and in the next verse, “ ἐξ is not therefore not of the body.” But they] are best taken as a question, appealing to the sense of the reader : they thus have more of the vigour of the Apostle’s style. mapa, see reff. ἐκ τ. o., belonging to the body us an aggregate ; so εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα,---ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων. The double negation strengthens,—see Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 9 b (he takes the two, ¢ this. case, as de- stroying one another (9), see ib. a). 17. The necessity of the members to one another, and tothe body. Understand ἦν in each clause, which is indeed expressed in ver. 19. 18.] νῦν δέ, but as the case really stands: see Hartung, Parti- kellehre, ii. 25. τὰ μέλη, generally,— ἐν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, severally. καθὼς Ader. answers to καθὼς βούλεται, ver. 11. 19.] The same ‘reductio ad absur- dum’ which has been made in the concrete twice in ver. 17, is now made in the ab- stract: if the whole were one member, where would be the body (which by its very idea μέλη ἔχει πολλά: see vv. 12, 14) ? 20.] Brings out the fact ἐπ contrast to ver. 19, as ver. 18 in contrast to ver. 17. 21. 26.1] And the spiri- tual gifts are also necessary to one an- 582 1 Matt. vi. 8. Luke v. 31 |). Prov. xvui. 2. o — (1) Matt. xVii, 25 al. (2) ch.iv.9 al. p Acts ii. 30 reff. q Acts xiii. 46 s Esth. i. 20. t Mark xii. 40. Luke xil. 4+. Dan. iv. 33 (26) Theod. Ὁ = here (Matt. xxi. 33 || Mk. XxVvii. 28 " Mk., 48 Mk. J.) only. (Ruth ili. 3.) | τὰ ΠΡ ἐν (-Beats, μεριμνῶσιν Ta μέλη. 1 Pet. iii. 3.) x Acts xiii. 50 retf. (-μόνως, ch. xiv. 40.) 39 only. ach. i. 7 reff. only+. 1 Kings xxii. 8 Symm.([? or Incert.} ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. XTi. ᾽ ’ ’ a A r / 9 ; δ ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς εἰπεῖν τῇ χειρὶ ᾿ Χρείαν cov οὐκ ‘eyo ἢ ΄ Ἁ al 4 ’ ΄ al ,’ ” π πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσὶν ' Χρείαν ὑμῶν οὐκ | ἔχω. 22 ἀλλὰ " πολλῷ " μᾶλλον τὰ ὃ δοκοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ’ θ / Ρ e ͵ 4 ’ af : 93 \ A ο ὃ - ἀσθενέστερα ? ὑπάρχειν 4 ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν, *° καὶ ἃ ° δοκοῦ- , 3 ἴω ῇ / A μεν ' ἀτιμότερα εἶναι TOD σώματος, τούτοις ὃ τιμὴν ‘ περισ- - \ Ν / e an -ἰ . σοτέραν δ περιτίθεμεν, καὶ Ta‘ ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν “ εὐσχημο- , / f σύνην ' περισσοτέραν EXEL. 94 » 4 δὲ Χ > 7 ΄ -“ > ~“* τὰ O€ * εὐσχήμονα ἡμῶν οὐ ν / » » Ν e ‘\ Ζ Υ̓ ἈΝ “ “Ὁ ἡ) χρείαν δ ἔχει" ἀλλὰ O θεὸς * συνεκέρασεν τὸ σῶμα, τῷ , / \ ΄ Oe 1 A F ἃ ὑστερουμένῳ ἱ περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιμήν, 58 ἵνα μὴ ἢ b , ’ A > \ \ ee, ς \ > ΄ σχίσμα ἐν τῷ σώματι, ἀλλὰ τὸ avTO ὑπὲρ ἀλληλων Fs ΄ ἃ , 26 καὶ εἴτε πάσχει Ev μέλος, ἃ συν- vhere only. Deut. xxiv. 1. (-μονεῖν, ch. vii. 36. -μοσύνη, Rom. i. 27.) y abs., Acts ii. 45 reff. Ὁ ch. i. 10 reff. ch. x. 11 reff. constr. acc., ch. vii. 32, &c. reff. w. ὑπέρ, here only. Ps. xxavii. 18. w here only +. Polyb. x. 18. 7, z Heb. iv. 2only+. 2 Mace. xv. c Matt. vi. 23 al. fr. 2 Kings vii. 10. plur., d Rom. vii. 17 rec om 6 (absorbed in the οφθαλμος follg 2), with K eho [arm Thdrt,]: ins ABCDF LPN rel Orig, Bas, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase Thl-comm Ce. 23. ins μελη bef tov σωματος D ΕἾ -» Ὁ] lat-ff[not Aug,]; bet eva: 17 [vulg F-lat Damasc }. 24. aft exe: ins τιμης D F-gr Syr. συνεκερασεν bef o θεος A. om To XN}. (adda, so ABCDLN be g m 0.) rec voTepouvtt (appy corrn to more usual N. T. expression), with DFKILX* rel Orig, Dial, Chr, [Euthal-ms Antch, | Thdrt Thl Ge: txt ABCR! 17 Melet,(in Epiph) Damasce. τιμὴν, τι περισσοτερον δους B(see table). for περισσοτεραν Sous 25. σχίσματα D![-gr] F[-gr] LX rel fuldarm Bas, Antch, Damase ΤῊ] Ang, Sedul: txt ABCD?K f hl mo 17 vulg(and F-lat) D-lat syrr copt Orig, [Chr, Thdrt 2c] Ambrst Aug). for To avto, Ta avta D}{-gr] F/-gr] arm Orig,. μεριμνα DF Thli-marg. 26. for Ist εἰτε, εἰ τι BF latt syr arm Ambrst Pel Cassiod Bede: txt AC D[-gr] KLX rel [Syr(ué quando) copt Bas, Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt Damase ΤῺ] (ec [Cypr,(si) Augsepe (quia si) ]. other. This is spoken in reproof of the highly endowed, who imagined they could do without those less gifted than them- selves, as the preceding to those of small endowment, who were discontented with their gifts. 22, 23.] Nay, the rela- tion between the members is so entirely different from this, that the very dis- paragement, conventionally, of any mem- ber, is the reason why more care should be taken of it. I understand by the τὰ δο- κοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν, those members which in each man’s case appear to be inheritors of disease, or to have incurred weakness. By this very fact, their necessity to him is bronght out much more than that of the others. 23.] So also in the case of the parts ἃ δοκοῦμεν ἀτιμότερα εἶναι---- on which usage has set the stamp of dis- honour. Perhaps he alludes (as distin- guished from τὰ ἀσχήμ. below) to those limbs which we conceal from sight in accordance with custom, but in the ex- posure of which there would be no ab- solute indecency. So Chrys., καλῶς εἶπε τὰ δοκοῦντα, καὶ ἃ δοκοῦμεν (but I should draw a distinction between the two, in om Ist ἐν A (Orig). accordance with the above explanation of ἀσθενέστ., and render τὰ δοκοῦντα, which appear to be [of themselves], and ἃ δο- κοῦμεν, Which we think [conventionally |: notice also ὑπάρχειν and εἶναι, on which see Acts xvi. 20, note) δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐ τῆς φύσεως τῶν πραγμάτων, ἀλλὰ τῆς τῶν πολλῶν ὑπονοίας 7 ψῆφος. Hom. xxxi. p. 278. τιμ. περισσ. περιτίθ. | viz. by clothing (garments of honour, as the Targ. of Onkelos on Gen. iii. 21) : honour- ing them more than the face, the noblest part, which we do not clothe. καὶ τὰ aox.| Here there is no ἃ δοκοῦμεν, and no ambiguity. Chrys. (ibid.) says: . ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως πλείονος ἀπολαύει τιμῆς" Kal οἱ σφόδρα πένητες, κἂν τὸ λοιπὸν γυμνὸν ἔχωσι σῶμα, οὐκ ἂν ἀνάσχοιντο ἐκεῖνα τὰ μέλη δεῖξαι γυμνά. 24.] The comely parts are in some measure neglected, not needing to be covered or adorned: but (opposed to χρείαν ἔχει) God (at the creation) tempered the body together (compounded it of members on a principle of mutual compensation),— to the deficient part giving more abundant honour, 25.] that there be no disunion (see ver. 21) in the body, but that the members IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 583 πάσχει πάντα τὰ μέλη" εἴτε ὃ δοξάζεται [ἕν] μέλος, f συγ- « = here only. ; , \ a oF ¢ - ὃ kas a ~ \ Oa θεὰς χαίρει WAVTA τὰ MEAN. υμεις OE ἐστέ OWUA χρίστου Καὶ 6) prit.ii. 13, , WEY ee \ - e \ “ἢ 18 only. μέλη 84 ἐκ ἃ μέρους. “8 καὶ ods μὲν * ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν TH LP. ‘Gen, " y τῇ - : " » Σ xxi. 6 only. : ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτον ἀποστολους, δεύτερον yan Tpopntas, g = oh vii. 5 , »” , ν h ch. xiii. 9 bis, τρίτον ™ διδασκώλους, ἔπειτα Ῥ δυνάμεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσματα ᾿ 0, ΤΣ only. (see Rom. 4 ἰαμάτων, * ἀντιλήμψεις, ὃ κυβερνήσεις, Ῥ γένη Ργλωσσῶν. *. reff. μ ) ᾿ ’ 2 Ὗ * 1 Kings xxiii. 26.) i — ver. 8 al. see note. k = ver. 18. labsol., Acts xii. 1. Eph. i. 22 al. m Acts xiii. 1. Eph. iy. 11. n Acts xi. 27 reff: 01 Tim. ii. 7. 2 Tim. i. 11. p = ver. 10. ἢ q ver. 9 (reff.). r here only. Ps. xxi. 19. Sir. xi. 12. 2 Mace. viii. 19. (-λαμβάνεσθαι, Acts xx. 35.) s here only. Prov.i. 5. xi. 14. (xx. 18 F compl.[? 21 Ald.j: Prov. xx. 14—22 is omd in ABN.) xxiv. 6 only. om 2nd ἐν ABR}. 27. σωμα bet ἐστε F[not F-lat] Ambr/ txt, ]. for pepous, μελους (perhaps error: perhaps, as Mey, εκ wep. was not understood) D\(and lat) vulg [F-lat] syr(uep. mg) arm Orig, Eus, Epiph, Thdrt, Procl, [Sevrn-c, Ambrst] (om ex με. Hil, Aug,): txt is supported by Orig,(and int.) Eus, Chr, [Bas, Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damase ΤῊ] Cc. 28. ins [καὶ bef τριτ. m Orig,(om,-int,) : add] de D![-gr]. rec for 2nd επειτα, eta (corrn as more usual, foilg ἐπειτὰ : the omn may be accounted for by a desire to throw all into one catalogue), with KL rel Thdrt ΤῊ] Hc: om Ὁ F{-gr] Hil, Ambr, : txt ΑΒΟΝ a 17 Bas, Cyr-jer, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Damase. the line N-corr’). : may have the same care (viz. that for mutual well-being) for one another. The verb is plur., on account of the personifi- cation of the individuai members (Meyer). 26. καί, and accordingly, in mat- ter of fact: we see that God’s temperament of the body has not failed of its purpose, for the members sympathize most inti- mately with one another. πάσχει ... συνπάσχει] καὶ γὰρ τῇ πτέρνῃ πολ- λάκις προΞξπαγείσης ἀκάνθης, ὅλον τὸ σῶμα αἰσθάνεται καὶ μεριμνᾷ᾽ καὶ νῶτος κάμπτε- ται, καὶ γαστὴρ καὶ μηροὶ συστέλλονται, καὶ χεῖρες καθάπερ δορυφόροι κ. ὑπηρέται προσιόντες ἀνέλκουσι τὸ παγέν, καὶ κεφαλὴ ἐπικύπτει, καὶ ὀφθαλμοὶ μετὰ πολλῆς ὁρῶτι THs φροντίδος. Chrys. p. 282. δοξά- ἵεται... συγχαίρει] Chrys. again with equal beauty instances, στεφανοῦται 7 κεφαλή, καὶ ἅπας ὃ ἄνθρωπος δοξάζεται" λέγει τὸ στόμα, καὶ γελῶσιν ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ εὐφραίνονται (ibid.). But perhaps the analogy requires that we should rather understand δοξ. of those things which physically refresh or benefit the member, e. g. anointing or nourishment. 27.| Application of all that has been said of the physical body, to the Corinthians as the mystical body of Christ: and to indiwiduals among them, as members in particular, i.e. each according to his al- lotted part in the body. Each church is said to be the body of Christ, as each is said to be the temple of God (see ch. iii. 16, note) : not that there are many bodies or many temples ; but that each church is an image of the whole aggregate,—a microcosm, having ‘the same character- istics. Chrys. would understand ἐκ μέρους — ὅτι ἡ ἐκκλησία H map ὑμῖν μέρος ἐστὶ τῆς πανταχοῦ κειμένης ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τοῦ σώ- om yevy X}(ins above ματος τοῦ διὰ πασῶν συνισταμένου τῶν ἐκ- κλησιῶν (Hom. xxxil. p. 285): but this, though true, does not appear to have been here before the Apostle,—only the whole Corinthian church as the body of Christ, and its individual components as members, each in his appointed place. 28. | The divine disposition of the members in the spiritual body. os μέν was apparently intended to be followed by ois (or &AAovs) δέ, but meanwhile another arrangement, πρῶτον, δεύτ., τρίτ., occurs to the Apostle, and ots μέν is left uncor- rected, standing alone. See Eph. iv. 11, where τοὺς μέν is followed by τοὺς δέ, regularly. ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. in the (uni- versal) church, a sense more frequently found in the Epistle to the Ephesians, than in any other part of St. Paul’s writings. amp. ἀποστόλους] Not merely the Twelve are thus designated, but they and others who bore the same name and had equal power, e.g. Paul himself, and Barna- bas, and James the Lord’s brother: see also note on Rom. xvi. 7. apo. | See above, on ver. 10. διδασκάλους | See reff. : those who had the gift of expound- ing and unfolding doctrine and applying it to practice,—the λόγος σοφίας and the λύγος γνώσεως. δυνάμεις] He here passes to the abstract nouns from the con- crete,—perhaps because no definite class of persons was endowed with each of the following, but they were promiscuously granted to all orders in the church : more probably, however, without any assignable reason; as in Rom. xii. 6—8, he passes from the abstract to the concrete. ἀντιλήμψεις | i.e. ἀντέχεσθαι τῶι ἀσθενῶν and the like, as Chrys. forming one depart- ment of the διακονίαι of ver. 5: as do also 584 + Acts ii. 4. κ. 46. xix. 6. ch. xiv. 2 ἄς. au Luke xxiv. 27. Acts ix. 36. ch xiv. 5, 13, 27 only τ. 2 Macc. i. 56 ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOT®S A. 29 μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; μὴ πάντες ™ προφῆται; μὴ πάντες ™ διδάσκαλοι; μὴ πάντες ἢ δυνάμεις ; °° μὴ πάντες ᾳ χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν “ ἰαμάτων ; μὴ πάντες "γλώσσαις ἐλαλοῦσιν ; μὴ πάντες διερμηνεύουσιν ; XIII. 1 éav παῖς only. (-νευτής, ιν ΤΊ δ NeW 4 δὺν Ὲ , 4 eZ Papeete τς Ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ “ χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα: καὶ ἔτι τ 7 καθ᾽ Y ὑπερβολὴν * ὁδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι. nis rae w ver. 4 reff. x = ch. xii. 13. xiv. 3. Xch.iv. 17. 1 Kings xii. 23. see Acts xiii. 10 reff. 31. om Ist τα F [2nd τα is written above the line]. y Kom. vii. 13 reff. rec for μειζονα, κΚρειττονα, with DFKL rel (-σσονα DF Kc) latt copt(appy) arm Orig,[-int, ] Sevrn-e, Chr, Damase, Phot, Thl(ov« εἶπε τὰ μείζονα ἀλλὰ τὰ κρείττονα) [Ambr, Ambrst]: txt ABCN in 17. 73 am eth Orig, Thdor-cat, [Cyr, Euthal-ms ] Thdrt-comm Damase, Jers. for ετι, cette D': ετει[ ἃ : exter] F. και F old-lat Syr. κυβερνήσεις, a higher department, that of the presbyters or bishops—the direction of the various churches. γένη γλωσσών] εἶδες ποῦ τέθεικε τουτὶ τὸ χάρισμα, καὶ πῶς πανταχοῦ τὴν ἐσχάτην αὐτῷ νέμει τάξιν ; Chrys. p. 287. There certainly seems to be intention in placing this /as¢in rank: but I ain persuaded that we must not, with Meyer, seek for a classified arrangement: here, as above, vv. 7—11, it seems rather suggestive than logical: the xap. ἰαμ. naturally sug- gesting the avr:Ajuvers,—and those again, the assistances to carry out the work of the church, as naturally bringing in the κυβερ- νήσεις, the government and guidance of it. 29, 30.) The application of the questions already asked vv. 17—19. 29. δυνάμεις ποῦ, as Meyer, al., accusa- tive, governed by €xovaw—which involves a departure from the parallelism, besides the harshness of construction :—but nom- native, in apposition with πάντες. ‘The Apostle has above placed the concrete, ἀπόστολοι, προφῆται, διδάσκαλοι, in appo- sition with δυνάμεις and χαρίσμ. ἰαμ., and now proceeds with the same arrangement till he comes to χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, which being too palpably unpredicable of persons, gives rise to the change of construction, — μὴ πάντες Xap. ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων; In the last two questions, he departs from the order of the last verse, and takes in again one particular from the former catalogue, ver. 10. Meyer compares Hom. Il. ν. 726—734. See Stanley’s note and excur- sus. 31.] But (he has been shewing that all gifts have their value: and that all are set in the church by God: some however are more valuable than others) do ye aim at the greater gifts (uel¢. is ex- plained ch, xiv.5). This exhortation is not inconsistent with ver. 11: but, as we look for the divine blessing on tillage and care- ful culture, so we may look for the aid of the Spirit on carefully cultivated powers of the understanding and speech ;—and we may notice that the greater gifts, those of προφητεία and διδασκαλία, consisted in the Ou deck. bef υμιν ΕἾ -gr], inspired exercise of the conscious faculties, in which culture and diligence would he useful accessories. ‘‘ Spiritus dat, ut vult (ver. 11): sed fideles tamen libere aliud pre alio possunt sequi et exercere, 6. xiv. 26.” Bengel. Compare also xiv. 39. There is thus no need to explain away ζηλοῦτε, as Grot. (“ agite cum Deo precibus ut ac- cipiatis’’) and others: or to depart from the known usage of χαρίσματα, aud explain it to mean fuith, hope, and love,as Morus, or the fruits of love, as Billroth. καὶ ἔτι) And moreover : besides exhorting you to emulate the greatest gifts. καθ᾽ ὑπ. ὁδ.] An eminently excellent way, viz. of emulating the greatest gifts : —so Theophyl. : καὶ μετὰ τούτων (τυῦτο γὰρ δηλοῖ τὸ καὶ ἔτι), ἐὰν ὅλως ζηλωταὶ ὑπάρχητε χαρισμάτων, δείξω ὑμῖν μίαν ὁδὸν καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, τουτέστιν, ὑπερέχου- σαν, ἥτις φέρει ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ χαρίσματα. τὴν ἀγάπην δὲ λέγει. καθ᾽ ὑπερβ.] must not be joined with the verb,—‘ est adhue via quam vobis diligentissime de- monstro’ (Pagnini’s version, and some mentioned by Kstius): see reff. and cf. 7 μάλιστα ἀναγνώρισις, Arist. Poet. ii. 6,— μάλα στρατηγόν, Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 39,— εὖ πρᾶξις, Asch. Agam. 262,--- σφόδρα γυναικῶν, Plato, Legg. i. p. 639 ©, and other examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 338. The explanation of Estius and Billroth, that the way which he is about to shew them is ‘ multo excellentiorem iis donis de quibus hactenus egit’ (Est.), is clearly wrong : the opening verses of ch. xiii. shewing, that he does not draw a com- parison between love and gifts, but only shews that it is the only way, in which gifts can be made effectual in the highest sense. See also on ch. xiv. 1. Cuap. XILI. 1—13.] Toe PANEGYRIC OF Love ; as the principle without which all gifts are worthless (1—3) : its attributes (4—7) : its eternity (8—12) : its superior dignity to the other great Christian graces (18). Meyer quotes from Valcknaer, Ὁ. 299: “Sunt figure oratorie, que hoc ABCDFP KLNa bedef gh kal mo 17, 47 wlE 2. Ameren TOV ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ EXO, λον ᾿ἀλαλάξον. xxi. 25 v.r.) only. Jer. xxvii. (1.} 42. f Mark v. 38 only. Josh. vi. 20. h Matt. xiii. 11. cl. xv. 51. Dan, ii. 18 al. k Acts xiv. 9 reff. Cuap. XIII. 1. homecotel in &! from un exw to un exw next ver: X-corr!. E-lat G-lat spec) { Ambrst }. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINGIOTS ‘A. ’ “ “ ἡ ἀνθρώπων ἐὑλαλῷ καὶ τῶν D we c λκὸ γέγονα “ χαλκὸς " κἂν ἔχω Cn ey εἰδῶ τὰ " μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ' γνῶσιν, κἂν (-χος, Acts ii. 2.) g = Rom. xii. 6. ch. xii. 10. xiv. 22 al. 985 δὰ : aso 80 ch. iv. 9. ὠγγέλων, * 2 Cor. xii. d ’ “ Ὰ e , B χων 1 κυμ α- eerie vi. 8 \ \| Mt. xii. 41. Rey. xviii. 12 only. Gen. iv. 22. d here {Luke e here only. 1 Chron. xiii. 8. (Rev. i. 3.) see Sir. xxiv. 33. i= ch. viii, 1. xii. 8 al. Prov. xxx. (xxiv.) 3. K ἔχω πᾶσαν supplied by for γεγονα, ἕν εἰμι D! F(addg #), (in) unum sum ut old-lat(viz, D-lat [χαλικος F. | αλαλαζων AD ἃ [17]. 2. rec (for κἂν) καὶ eay (twice in this ver and twice in next), with DF K(1st και αν) L(&) rel(om 2nd cay exw 47 [Bas,]) Chr, (Bas, Ephr, (Kuthal-ms Ist and 2nd) | Thdrt, Ist (4th και av) B, 4th 17: txt AC [Cyr, ], 2nd and διὰ B [Clem], lst 2nd and 3rd 17. for εἰδω, ovda (= oda) F: caput illuminant, omnes sua sponte nate in animo heroico, flagrante amore Christi et huic amori divino omnia ‘postponente.” “It may,” he adds, “ without impro- priety be called ‘a Psalm of Love :’”’—the nvr vo of the New Test. (see Ps. xlv. title). “On each side of this chapter the tumult of argument and remonstrance still rages: but within it, all is calm: the sen- tences move in almost rhythmical melody: the imagery unfolds itself in almost dra- matic propriety : the language arranges it- self with almost rhetorical accuracy. We can imagine how the Apostle’s amanucnsis must have paused to look up in his master’s face at the sudden change of his style of dictation, and seen his countenance lighted up as it had been the face of an angel, as the sublime vision of divine perfection passed before him.” Stanley. 1] ἐὰν λαλῶ supposes a case which never has been exemplified: even if I can speak, or as kK. V. though I speak. So Isocr. Areop. p. 142,--- ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὲν κατορθώσωσι περί τινας πράξεις, ἢ διὰ τύχην, ἢ δι ἀνδρὸς ἀρετήν, μικρὸν διαλιπόντες πάλιν εἰς τὰς αὐτὰς ἀπορίας κατέστησαν. See Matthie, ὃ 529. 1. ταῖς γλώσσαις τ. ἀνθρ. κ. τ. ayy.) ὅρα πόθεν ἄρχεται" πρῶτον ἀπὸ τοῦ θαυμαστοῦ δοκοῦντος εἶναι παρ᾽ αὑτοῖς καὶ μεγάλου, τῶν γλωσσῶν. Chrys. p- 289. It is hardly possible to un- derstand γλῶσσαι here of any thing but articulate forms of speech: i.e. languages. Meyer and De W., who deny that the speaking with tongues was ever in an articulate language, vehemently impugn such a rendering here. But their own ren- dering is to me undistinguishable from it, as far as the sense is concerned: ‘ tongues speaking in all possible ways,’ surely, in the common acceptation of words, must mean, tongues speaking all possible lan- guages, and the use of the word indif- ferently for the tongue and a tongue (a language), when this very gift is spoken of, 6. 5. Acts ii. 4, compared with 11, and here as compared with ch. xii, 30, is one of the ἰδῶ AD! 17. 47). strongest proofs that λαλεῖν γλώσσαις; is to speak in languages: see note on Acts 1]. 4. Of men (generic) and of angels (ge- neric): i.e. ‘of ald men and all angels,’ whatever those tongues may be. ἀγάπην) Love fo all, in its most general sense, as throughout the chapter: no dis- tinction being here drawn between love to man and to God, but the general principle dealt with, from which both spring. The ‘Caritas’ of the Latin versions has oc- casioned the rendering ‘ charity’ in most modern versions. Of this word Stanley remarks, “the limitation of its meaning on the one hand to mere almsgiving, or on the other to mere toleration, has so much narrowed its sense, that the simpler term ‘Love,’ though too general exactly to meet the case, is now the best equivalent.” γέγονα) Iam become; the case supposed is regarded as present : ‘if 7 can speak . I am become.’ χαλκ. ἠχ-] Brass, of any kind, struck and yielding a sound: i.e. ἀναίσθητόν τι κ. ἄψυχον. Chrys. No particular musical instrument seems to be meant. κύμβαλον] κύμβαλα ἦν πλα- Téa κ. μεγάλα χάλκεα, Jos. Antt. vii. 12. 3. The Heb. name is most expressive, Ὁ ΒΝ. There appear to have been two sorts, men- tioned in Ps. cl. 5, pow yoy and aAYnn’s, rendered by the LXX, κυμβάλοις εὐήχοις —and κ. ἀλαλαγμοῦ, as here. Winer thinks the former answered to our cas- ins ta bef παντα Ε΄. tagnettes, the latter to our cymbals. The larger kind would be here meant. See Winer, Realw. art. ‘ Becken.’ ἀλα- λάζον] see Ps. cl. cited above. 2.] τὰ μυστήρ. πάντα are all the secrets of the divine counsel,—see Rom. xi. 25 (note) ; xvi. 25,—and reff. The knowledge of these would be the perfection of the gift of pro- phecy. The verb belongs to both μυστ. and γνῶσιν. The full construction would be εἰδῶ μυστ. and ἔχω γνῶσιν. πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν hardly, as Stanley, implies “αὐ the faith in the world, but rather, ‘all the faith required to,’ &c.: or perhaps the art. conveys. the allusion to our Lurd’s 586 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. XIII. 7 Isa. liv. 10 Ν k / ae ] v Im θ Ξ , 4 δὲ \ oy τιν “TLATLY WSTE § OPN MEULOTAVELY, AYATHV OE μὴ ἔχω, m -avetr, here ἢ > / » 3 “Δ 0 , ΄ \ Ρ ΄ Γ᾽ , only+. (Luxe " οὐθέν εἰμι. Kav °Wwuicw Tavta τὰ ὃ urTapyovTa xvi. 4. Acts > = “»} xX -“ \ a ΄ JA ΄ aos =. OE ey a Ὁ παραδῶ TO σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθήσωμαι, only. Judg. ? ΄ δὲ ν + Oe s 2 -: a Aciteye ͵ τὰ Pisa Ald. ὠγώπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδεν * ὠφελοῦμαι. ἢ ὠγαητη ™ μα- compl. ~ uv , ε ᾽ ΄ > ow A ς > ΄ neh-sil® κροθυμεῖ, “Y χρηστεύεται, ἡ ἀγάπη οὐ " ζηλοῖ, [ἡ ἀγάπη) o Rom. xii. 20 ἊΝ ΄ > y = 5 9 ΡΣ ᾿ = only. constr., OU TTEPTTEPEVETAL, OU φυσιοῦται, OUK ασχήμονει, ov here only. Num. x1. 4, a “ \ a © a ’ b ΄ > ς ͵ d A Num ζητεῖ τὰ ὃ ἑαυτῆς, ov ὃ παροξύνεται, ov “ λογίζεται “TO p — Matt. xix. 21. χχῖν. 41. Heb. x. 33 ἃ]. Gen. xii. ὃ. = Acts xv. 26. Dan. iii. 28 (95). s Mark v. 26. Matt. xvi. 26. Prov. x.2 t Matt. xviii. 26,29. Luke xviii.7. 1 Thess. v. 14. Heb. vi. 15. James ν. 7 bis,8. 2 Pet. iii. 9only. Prov. xix. 11. {(-μια. Rom. ix. 22. -μως, Acts xxvi. 3.) u see Rom. ii. 4. 2 Cor. vi. 6. x here only t. see note. i. 27. -μων, οἷν. xii. 23.) c = Rom. iv. 8, from Ps. xxxi. 2. μεθισταναι BDF X-corr! m 17 Clem [Cyr,] Thl: txt ACKL rel Orig, Chr, [ Bas, Ephr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc, (Ke. elz οὐδεν, with Di Kfe sil} Clem, Meth, Mac, Chr, [Bas, Cyr,] Thdrv: txt ABCD3LX Clem, Eph, Bas,[-wss; Euthal-ms} Mac, Damasc, Thl-comm (Ke. for εἰμι, ὠφελουμαι A Ainbry. 3. elz ψωμιζω (corrn, the force of the aor not being perceived), with ΚΓ 6 sil]: txt ABCDELX® rel. παραδωσω FI’. καυθησομαι DFL b? cdf hk 47 [ Bas, Cyr, Euthal-ms] Max-conf, : καυχήσωμαι ABN 17 copt-ims xth{-rom]} Ephr, Jer,(from gr-inss asserts apud Grecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria diversa esse, but thinks, οὐ similitudinem καυθησωμαι et καυχησωμαι apud Latinos errorem inolevisse) : txt CK rel Orig{-e, Ephr,] Chr, Thdrt [Cyr,: simly latt syrr copt-wilk goth eth arm Tert, Cypr, Rebapt, Ambrst Augsepe} Jac-nisib. ουθεν AN 17. 73 Bas-ms,: txt BCDFKL rel Chr, [Ephr, Bas, Cyr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt. 4. om 3rd ἡ ayarn Β al7-9.55.73-4. 118-22! lect-17 vulg[F-lat ]copt arm Clem, Ephr, Chr, { Bas, Cyr, ΤῊΙ Orig-int, Tert, Cypr, Ambr Ambrst. meptopeveta A Ephry. v here only +. (not found elsewhere. Lexx.) w Acts vii. 9 reff. y ch. 1v. 6 reff. z ch. vii. 36 only. Deut. xxv. 3. (-“oovrvy. Rom. ach. x. 24. Phil. 11. 21. Ὁ Acts xvii. 16 only (reff.). d Rom. ii. 9 reff. 5. for τα eauTns, To un εαυτης B Clem,| txt, }. saying, Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21: ‘all that faith,’ so as, &e. 8.1 The double accus. after ψωμίζω is found in the reff. to LXX: but here the accus. of the person is omitted, and left to be supplied from the context: If I bestow in food all my sub- stance. See the quotation from Coleridge in Stanley’s note. παραδ. TO σώμ. μ- ἵνα καυθ. So ref. Dan., καὶ παρέδωκαν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμπυρισμόν, LXX. πῦρ, Theod.: see also 2 Mace. vii. 37. He evidently means in self-sacrifice: for country, or friends. Both the deeds men- tioned in this verse are such as ordinarily are held to be the fruits of love, but they may be done without it, and if so, are worthless. Stanley prefers καυχήσωμαι--- and Lachmann has edited it. The objec- tions to it seem to me to be, (1) It leaves παραδῶ standing in a very vague and un- detined meaning—* deliver, to what?” (2) It introduces an irrelevant and con- fusing element, a boastful motive, into a set of hypotheses which put forward merely an act or set of acts on the one side, and the absence of love on the other: and in- deed, worse still, (3) it makes an hypo- thesis which would reduce the self-sacri- fice to nothing, and would imply the absence of love; and so would render ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω unnecessary..— 4. 7. The blessed attributes of love. 4.} μακροϑυμεῖ is the negative side, xpnoreverat the positive, of a loving temper: the former, the withholding of anger; the latter, the exercise of kind- ness. ov ζηλοῖ, ‘ knows neither envy nor jealousy: both are included under the more general sense of ζῆλος. meptrepevetat | ‘I'he word occurs in Cicero ad Attic. i. 14: ‘Di boni! quomodo ézep- περευσάμην novo auditori Pompeio!’ and Mare. Antonin. v. 5: ἀρεσκεύεσθαι, καὶ meftepeverOat, x. τοσαῦτα ῥιπτάζεσθαι TH ψυχῇ. Among the examples in Wetst. of mepmepos and περπέρεια, is a good defini- tion from Basil: τί ἐστι τὸ περπερεύεσθαι; πᾶν ὃ μὴ διὰ χρείαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ καλλω- πισμὸν περιλαμβάνεται περπερείας ἔχει κατηγορίαν. And the Etymol. Mag.,— ἀντὶ τοῦ, ματαιοῦται, ἄτακτεῖ, κατεπαί- ρεται μετὰ βλακείας ἐπαιρόμενος. ‘The nearest English expression would perhaps be displays not itself. See Wetst. φυσ., see, for a contrast, ch. viii. 1. 5.| οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ seems to be general, without particular reference to the disor- ders in publie speaking with tongues. τὰ ἑαυτῆς — Love is so personified, as here to be identified with the man possessing the grace, who does not seek τὰ ἑαυτοῦ : see ch. x. 38. ov λογίζ. τὸ κακόν] imputeth not (the) evil: οὐδὲν πονηρὸν οὐ μόνον οὐ κατασκευάζει ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ὑποπτεύει κατὰ τοῦ φιλουμένου, Chrys. Hom. xxxiii, p- 304: and so Theod., Theophyl., Estius, λογι- ὄεται..Ῥ ABCDF KLIPS abcde fghk lin o17. 47 2. yAwo- σαι ', ABDEFK RiP Sab οὐ ον hklm 0 17. 47 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 587 2—9, Γσυγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ¢ constr., Matt, d ΄ 6 Ss e , 3 \ A 9 / κακόν, ὃ ov “ χαίρει ἐπὶ TH ἀδικίᾳ, - é xviii. 13. > / [σὲ 7 , / 8 ἀληθείᾳ, ἴ πάντα "στέγει, πάντα ἱπιστεύει, πάντα ‘ke; ἊΝ ! , k £ , Seite > of IOs ] eh. ἘΥΝ 17. € πίζξει, πάντα “ UTOMEVEL. ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε | πίπτει. 2 Cor. vii. 15. Prov. xxiv. m εἴτε δὲ " προφητεῖαι, ὴ καταργηθήσονται: τ εἴτε P ——— Pa Όρτο ἈΗΟ =C 4 παύσονται" " γνῶσις, “ καταργηθήσεται. 9 ἐκ δ ΦΣ μειο i = εἴτε 2 Thess. it. "μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν καὶ 1 ἐκ 1 μέρους ὁ προφητεύομεν" 1 18, 2 Tim. 12. Rom. i. hch. ix. 19. 1 Thess. iii. 1,5 only +. Sir. viii. 17 orly. iacc., Acts xiii. 41 reff. “hone - 2 Tim. ii. 10. Heb. x. 32. x1i.2,3. Jamesi.12. Wisd. xvi. 22. 1 — Luke xvi. 17. 1 Kings iii. 19. εκπ., = Jamesi. 11. see note, and Acts xii. 7. Rom. ix. 6. m so ch. xiv. 7. xv. 11. 2 Cor. Vili. 23. n ver. 2 (reff.). : Ὁ. ch. i. 28 reff. 2 Cor. iii. 14. p Acts ii. 4 reff. q absol., Acts xx.1. Exod. ix. 33, 34. rch. xii. 27 reff. sch. xi. 4, 5 reff. 6. om Ist τη F. 7. B! repeats marta στεγει. 8. om 7 B. rec exmimre:, with C3 DF K LPR3 rel Clem, Orig; Mac, Chr, ΕΡΡΕΥ; Bas, Cyr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damase ΤῊ] ec [Tert, Cypr,]: txt ΑΒΟΙ͂ΝῚ 17. 47! Nys, Orig- int, Ambrst Augsepe- om de C'D'FKP latt copt arm Did, [Ambrst] : ins ABC? D+ “3 - er] LN rel syr goth [Chr, Thdrt Damase Aug, }. pinyin καταργηθη- σεται B: προφητεια καταργηθησονται( sic) A. γνωσεις (Or ois) καταργηθησονται (to conform to the preceding clauses) A D?{[-gr] ΕΓ -οΥ] δὲ 17. 47 (Tert): γν. παυσεται P. 9. for yap, δε (perhaps because this sentence was regarded not as rendering a reason Sor the last, but as another assertion of the imperfection of knowledge and prophecy) KL rel Phot(in He: δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ γάρ. αἰτία yap ἐστι τοῦ διὰ τὶ μέλλουσι καταργ. K. Tava.) is om 67? goth eth[-rom] Orig, Eus, Melet, [Epiph,] Chr,: txt ABDF[P JX m (17, e sil) 47[sic] latt [syrr copt sth- -pl arm] Orig, [Did, Eus, Ath, Damasc] Thdrt Iren-int, Hil, [Ambrst]. Rickert, Meyer: and this is better and more accordant with the sense of λογίζε- ται, than the more general rendering ‘thinketh no evil.’ And we must not over- look the article, which seems here to have the force of implying that the evil actually exists, ‘the evil’ which is,—but Love does not impute it. So Theodoret, συγγινώσκει τοῖς ἐπταισμένοις, οὐκ ἐπὶ κακῷ σκόπῳ ταῦτα γεγενῆσθαι ὑπολαμβάνων. θ. οὐ χ. ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδ.) rejoices not at (the) iniquity, i.e. at its commission by others, —as is the habit of the unloving world. συγχαίρει τῇ ad. ] Most Commenta- tors, as the E. V., altogether overlook the force of the verb and the altered construction, and render, ‘rejoiceth in the truth: others, who respect the verb, make τῇ ἄληθ.Ξ- τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσι (Chrys.), those to whom, as in 3 John 12, μεμαρ- τύρηται ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας. But Meyer’s rendering is the only one which preserves the force of both words: re- Joices with the Truth, ἡ ἀλήθ. being personified, and meaning especially the spread among men (as opposed to ἀδικία) of the Truth of the Gospel, and indeed of the truth in general,—in opposition to those who (ref. Rom.) τὴν ἀλήθειαν ev ἀδικίᾳ Katéxovot,—who (ref. 2 Tim.) ἀνθίστανται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. 7. πάντα.-- i.e. all things which can be borne with a good conscience. So Bengel, of all four: ‘ videlicet, que tegenda vel credenda, quee speranda et sufferenda sunt.’ στέγει] bears: see note, ch. ix. 195. Hammond, Estius, Bengel (above),—‘ covers: but the variation in sense from ch. ix. is need- less. πιστ.Ἴ viz. without suspicion of another. ᾿ἐλπίζ. viz., even against hope—hoping what is good of another, even when others have ceased to do so. trop. | viz. persecutions and dis- tresses inflicted by others, rather than shew an unloving spirit to them. 8—12.|] The eternal abiding of Love, when other graces have passed away. 8. πίπτει] The exact word is that of the E. V., faileth : so Theod.: οὐ διασφάλλεται, GAN ἀεὶ μένει βεβαία κ. ἀσάλευτος kK. ἀκίνητος, ἐς ἀεὶ διαμένουσα. τοῦτο γὰρ διὰ τῶν ἐπαγομένων ἐδίδαξεν. Of the two readings, we may illustrate πίπτει by Plato, Phileb., p. 22 E, ἀλλὰ μήν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ νῦν μὲν ἡδονή σοι πεπτωκέναι καθαπερεὶ πληγεῖσα ὑπὸ τῶν νῦν δὴ λόγων : and Polyb. x. 33. 4, κἄν ποτε πέσῃ τὰ cage “in case the whole plan should fail: id. 1. 35. 5: and ἐκπίπτει by Plato, Gorg. Η 517, εἰ οὗτοι ῥήτορες ἦσαν, οὔτε τῇ ἀληθινῇ ῥητορικῇ ἐχρῶντο (ov γὰρ ἂν ἐξέπεσον) οὔτε τῇ κολακικῆ : where Heindorf,—‘proprie usurpatur de actoribus, cithareedis, aliisque, qui a spec- tatoribus exploduntur et exsibilantur:’ and by the celebrated passage in Demos- thenes περὶ ore. p. 915,---ἐτριταγωνίστεις, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐθεώρουν. ἐξέπιπτες, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐσύριτ- tov: where also, by the way, ἔπιπτες is ἃ various reading. By εἴτε, εἴτε, εἴτε, the general idea, χαρίσματα, is split into its species—be there prophesyings,—be there (speakings in) tongues,—be there knowledge. Chrys., al., understand the two first futures, katapy., Tava, of. the time when, the faith being every XIII. 10—15. 588 ΠΡῸΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. “ OY Μ \ ΄ . Ἵ t t=cnii6 19 ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ ᾿᾿ τέλειον, TO "ἐκ * μέρους ° καταργη- ABDPK xiv.20. Rom. 3 2 é ᾿: 2 ς - LPR αὐ! ἢ. James Oygetrar. ll ὅτε ἤμην “νήπιος, ἐλάλουν ὡς ‘VvNTLOS, cdetg i. 4 bis. τ ¢ hklm | 1Johniv. 18 w 9» , e , ΄ ’ , e 5 , Pes , . Ps cxxaviit. “ ἐὠρόνουν ὡς " νήπιος, * ἐλογιζόμην ws " νήπιος" OTE γέ- 017.47 | gos . and ry) ο ) Y wr si) we ΄ Ai 19 - δ λεῖα, passim. aes: ml ἡ τὸ ' ΚαΤΉργηκα : Ta oe νηπίου. : βλέπομεν aul, δὶ. 1. 9." ὦ / ΄ 2 in zonly. Yap ἄρτι Ou 5 ἐφόπτρου ἐν ὃ αἰνύγματι, τότε δὲ ἢ πρόςωπον | Neh. ii. 15. } ἤμεθα, Matt. xxiii. 30 bis. Acts xxvii. 31. Eph. ii. 3. v ch. iii. 1] reff. Gal. iv. 1, 3. w absol., | here only. Isa. xliv. 18. x = Rom. ii. 3. y Rom, vui. ὃ reff. z James 1. 23 ' only τ. Wisd. vii. 306. Sir. xii. 11 only. a here only. Num. xii. 8. Sir. xxxix. 3. b Gen. xxxii. 30. see 2 John 12, 3John 14. Num. xn. 8. . 10. rec ins tote bef to ex μεροὺυς ( for emphasis and precision), with D?3[-gr] KL rel syrr Orig, Mvlet, Chr, Thdrt: om ABD'FPR 17. 47 latt copt goth eth arm Orig, (- int,) Eus, ‘Ath, (Cyr -Po uthal- -ms Max, } Damasce Iren-int. cor σγηθ οί αν bef a εκ μερους DI3E latt Syr goth Orig-int, [Ambrst ] Jer. τα ἐκ μ. F{-gr| Iren-int,. 11. aft 1st ore ins δὲ D'[- gr | fuld. rec ws νηπίος bef the verb (3 times), with D F[-gr(and G-lat) | KL? rel fuld syrr goth arm Orig[-c, Bas, Euthal-ms] Epiph, Chr, Thdrt, ΤῊ] He [(‘Tert,) oe Ist time, m [Orig-int, |: txt ABN 17 vulg (F-lat | copt eth Clem; Orig” Ὁ]: int, Bas, Nys, (Did,) Thdrt, Damase Jer, Aug). rec att 2nd ore ins δε, ih 3, -gr] FK LVS ral [ Εγαϊας clem fuld demid } syrr copt eth arm Orig [-¢,-int Jatiq Meth Epiph, Chr, [ Bas, Kuthal- ms] Thdrt [ Damase Ambrst] Tert,: om ABD ‘(and lat) &! am(with harl! tol) goth Orig ,-int, | Did, Hil,. for ἡ ϑδας eye- νομὴν B Orig{ -c}). Ta Tov νηπιου bef κατηργηκα VD FY - gr (aud G-lat) | syr goth [arm (Tischdf) Epiph,| Bas Orig-int,{ (txt,-c,-int,) ‘ert, Hil, Ambrst ]. (not F- -lat Aug, sane) 12. [βλεπωμεν P 42: -ποιμεν m. |} om ‘yap "DIFP latt goth arm Clem, [Thdot, | Tert Cypr Ambrst. ins ὡς bef δι esomrpov D-gr b g o Syr syr-w-ast arm Clem, ins καὶ bef ev αινίγματι LP f 63. 109-73 Thdrt, [ Orig-int,(oMsepe) | Tert,. Gaud, }. Origeepel -inteepe | Hil, Gaud, [om Orig,-int, Hil, G where dispersed, these gifts should be xo longer needed. But unquestionably the -time alluded to is that of the coming of the Lord; see ver. 12, and this applies to all these, not to the last (γνῶσις) only. The two first, προφ. and yA@oo., shall be absolutely superseded : γνῶσις, rela/ively : the imperfect, by the perfect. 9, 10. | Reason given ;—that our knowledge, and our prophesying (utterance of divine things) are but partial, embracing but a part: but when that which is perfect (entire—universal) shall have come, this partial shall be abolished—superseded. See Eph. iv. 11—13, where the same idea is otherwise expressed. 11.] Ana- logical illustration of ver. 10. νήπιος and τέλειος are used in contrast ch. ii. 6 —iii. 1; xiv. 20. acraes ἐφρόνουν, ἐλογιζόμην-Ἰ spoke, I | thought) (felt, was minded), I [reasoned (or}] judged). There can hardly be an allusion, as Theophyl., Gic., Bengel, Olsh., al., think, to the three gifts, of tongues (ἐλάλ.), pro- phecy (ἐφρόν., which suits but very lamely), and knowledge (ἐλογιζ.). ὅτε yey. x.7.A.| Now that Iam become a man, I have brought to an end the ways of a child: not, as E. V, ‘when I became a man, I put away ....,’ as if it were done on a set day, and as if yéy. and κατήργ. were aorists. For this use of ὅτε, cf. Demosth. Olynth. 1, init. ὅτε τοίνυν ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει, προτήκει προθύμως ἐθέ- Aew ἀκούειν: see Kiihner, ὃ 813. 2. 12.) Contrast between our present sight and knowledge,—and those in the future perfect state. γάρ justities the analogy of the former verse: for it is just so with us. ἄρτι, in our present con- dition, until the Lord’s coming. δι᾿ ἐςόπτρου. through a mirror: i.e. as Billroth, Meyer, and De W.—accorucing to the popular illusion, which regards the object, really seen behind the mirror, as seen through it. We must think, not of our mirrors of glass, but of the imperfectly- reflecting metallic mirrors of the ancients. The idea of the lapis specularis, placed in windows, being meant, adopted by Schétt- gen from Rabbinical usage (e. g. ‘omnes prophetz viderunt per specular obscurum, et Moses doctor noster vidit per specular lucidum’ (Wetst.) : and see numerous ex- amples in his Hor. Hebr. i. 646 ff.), and tollowed by many Commentators, is incon- sistent with the usage of ἔξοπτρον, which (Meyer) is always a MIRROR (Pind. Nem. vii. 20: Anacr. xi. 2 ; xx. 5. Lucian, Amor. xliv. 48: see also reff.): the window of lapis specularis being 8tortpa (Strabo, xii. 2, p. 540). ἐν αἰνίγματι} There is a reference to ref. Num., στόμα κατὰ στόμα λαλήσω αὐτῷ ἐν εἴδει, καὶ ov δι αἰνιγμάτων. Many take the words adverbi- ally,—*enigmatically’ (so K. V., ‘darkly’ [and so we are almost obliged to do in an English version]): but this cannot be [the strict rendering], because αἴνιγμα is objective, not subjective: ‘a dark hint given by words. 1 agree with Meyer, notwithstanding De Wette’s strony objec- way. I, 2. ΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT® A. 589 "πρὸς ὑπρύςωπον' ἄρτι γινώσκω ἴ ἐκ * μέρους, τότε δὲ c -- ποκα. 1. 35. c2 , d θὰ \ ο 2 ’ θ ἐπιγνώσομαι “ καθὼς καὶ ° ἐπεγνώσθην. f / / 3 \ > J / Ἁ / “ p 8 / δὲ μένει πίστις ἐλπὶς ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταῦτα' ὃ μείζων ὃὲ f τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη. XIV. 1" Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην, ' ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ * πνευ- Matt. xi. 27 δὲ bis. Jer. v. 5. (absol., Acts ix. 30 only.) ἃ ch. xii. ΤΣ reff. e Rom. vi. 22. vii. 6,17 al. Job xxx. 1,9. - Heb. xiii. 13 & νυνὶ aA , e Ν wn f ματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα ἱπροφητεύητε. * 0 yap ™ λαλῶν _ 1: See note 31. xiv. 5. comparat., Matt. xiii. 32. i= ch. xii. 31. ver. 39 only. Sir. li. 18. m ch. xii. 30 reff. n2nd rote, τε is written over the line by X-corr!. D-lat G-lat tol Cypr,. Luke ix. 46. ch. xv. 19. g = chi. xil. h = Rom. ix. 80 reff. Ps. xxxiii. 14. k=ch, x. 3,4 reff. lch. xi. 4, 5 reff. ins eyw bef επεγνωσθην F[-gr] 13. for νυνι δε wever, wever Se F(utver)[(not F-lat) D-lat] Clem, Hil, [Ambrst Aug, ]. tions, in believing ἐν αἰνίγματι to mean ‘in a dark discourse, viz. the revealed word, which is dark, by comparison with our future perfect knowledge. So also Luther : in einem dunfeln Wort. Thus, as M. ob- serves, ἐν will denote, as ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, Matt. vi. 4, the local department, in which the βλέπειν takes place. τότε — ὅταν ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον, ver. 10: ‘at the Lord’s coming, and after.’ πρόςωπ. πρὸς apdswr.| Face towards face, i. 6. by immediate intuition: so Heb. in reff. I shall thoroughly know even as I was (during this life: he places himself zn that state, and uses the aor. as of a thing gone by) thoroughly known. In this life we are known by God, rather than know Him: see Gal. iv. 9; ch. viii. 3, note,— and cf. Philo de Cherub. 32, vol. i. p. 159, viv ὅτε ζῶμεν, κρατούμεθα μᾶλλον ἢ ἄρχομεν, kK. γνωριζόμεθα μᾶλλον ἢ γνωρίζομεν. The sense of this aor. ἐπεγνώσθην must not be forced, as in E. V., to a present, or toa future, as by some Commentators. 13.] Superiority of Love to the other great Christian graces. Some gifts shall pass away—- but these three great graces shall remain for ever—¥AITH, HOPE, LOVE. This is necessarily the meaning,—and not that love alone shall abide for ever, and the other two merely during the present state. For (1) νυνὶ δέ is not ‘but now,’ i.e. in this present state, as opposed to what has just been said ver. 12,—but ‘rebus sic stantibus, ‘que cum ita εἰπέ, —and the inference from it just the contrary of that implied in the other rendering: viz. that since tongues, pro- phesyings, knowledge, will all pass away, we have left bué THESE THREE. (2) From the position of μένει, it has a strong emphasis, and carries the weight of the clause, as opposed to the previously-men- tioned things which καταργηθήσεται. (3) From τὰ τρία ταῦτα, a pre-eminence is obviously pointed out for fazth, hope, and dove, distinct from aught which has gone before. This being the plain sense of the words, how can faith and hope be said to endure to eternity, when faith will be lost in sight, and hope in fruition ? With hope, there is but little difficulty : but one place has inscribed over its portals, “ Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’ entrate.” New glo- ries, new treasures of knowledge and of love, will ever raise, and nourish, blessed hopes of yet more and higher,—hopes which no disappointment wil) blight. But how can faith abide,—faith, which is the evi- dence of things not seen,— where all things once believed are seen? In the form of holy confidence and trust, faith will abide even there. The stay of all conscious created being, human or angelic, is depen- dence on God ; and where the faith which comes by hearing is out of the question, the faith which consists in trusting will be the only faith possible. Thus Hope will remain, as anticipation certain to be ful- filled: Faith will remain, as trust, entire and undoubting :—the anchor of the soul, even where no tempest comes. See this expanded and further vindicated in my Quebec Chapel Sermons, Vol. i. Serm. viii. μείζων τ. The greater of these,—not ‘ greater than these.’ “ The greater,” as De Wette beautifully remarks, “because it contains in itself the root of the other two: we believe only one whom’ we love,—we hope only that which we love.” And thus the forms of Faith and Hope which will there for ever subsist, will be sustained in, and overshadowed by, the all-pervading superior element of eternal Love. Cuap. XIV. 1—25.] Demonstration of THE SUPERIORITY OF THE GIFT OF PRO- PHECY OVER THAT OF SPEAKING WITH TONGUES. 1.1 Transition from the parenthetical matter of the last chapter to the subject about to be resumed. Pursue after Love (let it be your great aim,—im- portant and enduring as that grace has been shewn to be): meantime however (during that pursuit; making that the first thing, take up this as a second) strive for spiritual gifts [see note on ch. xii. 1], but more (more than πν. in general: i.e. more for this than for others[; chiefly }) that ye may prophesy (sc. (ζηλοῦτε, ἵνα .. + ΠΡΟΣ KOOP! 590 n = Mark iv. 33. Acts xvil. 16. p ch. xiii. 2 reff. q = Rom. xiv. 19 reff. r = Rom. xii. 8 reff. s here only τ. Wisd. xix. 12 only. (-θιον, Phil. 1. te -«θεῖσθαι, 1 Thess. ii. - = Acts ix. 31 6x reff. Ὁ = ch. xii. 31. xiii. 13. v ch. xv. 2. -1 Tim. v. 19 only. Cuar. XIV. 2. yAwooats D-gr F-gr b 0 G?-lat arm Chr, [Ambr, ]. ανθρωπους ΕἾ -gr] (so in ver 3). il. 7 digest). NOIOT® A, XIV. 5 θέλω δὲ πᾶντας ὑμᾶς " λαλεῖν "' γλώσσαις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα | προφητεύητε" ἃ μείζων δὲ 0! προφητεύων ἢ ὁ ™ λαλῶν γλώσσαις, ἣ ἐκτὸς Yet μὴ " διερμηνεύη, ἵνα ἡ ἐκκλησία ἃ οἰκοδομὴν λάβῃ. νῦν δέ, ἀδελφοί, ἐὰν ἔλθω πρὸς ὑμᾶς '"' γλώσσαις λαλῶν, w ch, xii. 30 reff. x ch. xii. 18 al. ovx & (see Acts om τω (bef θεω) (for conformity with avép. Ὁ) BDIFPR! 1 Chr-comm, : ins AD3KLN3 rel Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] Ce. ουθις καὶ. for πνευματι, πνευμα F-gr D-lat G{-lat] am? with(fuld flor) Pel Vig Bede. 3. for o δε, εἰ yapo F-gr G[-lat]; nam qui vulg(and F-lat) D-lat [qui enim Aimbrst }). 4. for λαλων, λαλει F(G adds aut λαλων). γλωσσαις D 46 arm Mac). aft exxAnovay ins θεον F-gr G{-lat] vulg-ed [harl(appy) ](not am demid fuld tol F lat) Pel. 5. vuas bef παντας A Ambrst. k!. yAwoous bef AaAevy A am Chr, ΤῊ] : om Aadew for wa mpopntevnte, προφητευειν D!{-gr F-lat] vulg Jer, Pel. rec (for δε aft μειζων) yap, with DFKLN? rel [syrr eth arm] Chr, Thdrt [Damase] Jer, Ambrst: txt ABP! 39 copt [ Euthal-ms ]. add eorw F. diepunvever (the later mss confound εἰ and ἡ to a very great extent: see the original collations passim) Labe dfghk1lo 47 Chr, ΤῊ] : διερμηνευων I)'[-gr], ἢ 0 διερμηνευων F-gr(and G[-lat]). 6. rec vum, with D3KL rel Chr, Thl Qe: as the aim of your ¢7A0s). 2— 20. ] Prophecy edifies the BRETHREN more than speaking with tongues. 2.| For he that speaks in a tongue, speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him (so ἀκούω in reff. and Athen. ix. p. 382, ἔλεγεν ῥήματα ἃ οὐδὲ εἷς ἤκουσεν ἄν, i.e. as ἃ general rule, the assembly do not understand him; some, who have the gift of interpretation of tongues, may,— but they are the exception), but | opposed to οὐδεὶς yap ἀκούει) in the spirit (in his spirit, as opposed to in his understanding: his spirit is the organ of the Holy Ghost, but his understanding is unfruitful, see vv. 14, 15) he speaks mysteries (things which are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes also from himself) : 3.] but (on the other hand) he who prophesies, speaks to men edification (genus) and (species) ex- hortation and (species) consolation. See the definition of prophecy given on ch. xii. 10: and Stanley’s excursus introductory to this chapter. παραμυθία occurs Plato, Axioch. p. 865,---ἀσθενῆ τὴν ψυχήν, πάνυ ἐνδεᾶ παραμυθίας : and lian, V. Η. xii. 1, fin., παρεμυθήσατο ᾿Αρταξέρξην, κ. τὸ τῆς λύπης ἰάσατο πάθος, εἴξαντος τοῦ βασ. τῇ κηδεμονίᾳ, kK. τῇ παραμυθίᾳ πεισθέντος συνετῶς. 4.| ἕαυτ. oi. does not necessarily involve his understanding what he speaks: the exercise of the gift in ac- cordance with the prompting of the Spirit may be regarded as an οἰκοδομή: the in- teusity of the feeling of prayer or praise in txt ABD'FPN Chr-ms [Euthal-ms] Thdrt which he utters the words is edifying to him, though the words themselves are un- intelligible. This view is necessary on ac- count of what. is said in ver. 5, that if he can interpret, he can edify not only himself but the church. ἐκκλησίαν | [i. 6. the assembled Christians: see note on ch. xi. 18] not, as Meyer, a congregation, but = τὴν ἐκκλησίαν : the art. being often omitted when a noun in government has an emphatic place before the verb: ac- cordingly in ver. 5, it is 7 ἐκκλ. which is edified. 5.] He shews that it is from no antipathy to or jealousy of the gift of tongues that he thus speaks: but (force of the δέ) that he wished them ali to speak with tongues, but rather that they should prophesy. The distinetion between the ace. and inf. after θέλω, as the simple direct object of the wish, and ἵνα with the subj., as its higher and ulterior object, has been lost in the E. V. The second δέ is opposed to the subordinate Aaa. yA., as in ver. 1 to τὰ πνευματικά. μείζων δέ] δέ is transitional. μείζων) see retf.,—superior in usefulness, and there- fore in dignity. ἐκτὸς εἰ μή is a mixture of two constructions, ἐκτὸς εἰ, and εἰ μή. It is not a Hebraism, as Grot. supposes; Wetst. gives examples from Demosth., Aristides, Lucian, Sextus Empis+ ricus: and from Thom. Mag., φαμέν, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ τόδε, Kal ἐκτὸς εἰ τόδε. διερμη- vevy | viz. 6 λαλῶν γλώσσῃ, not Tis, as suggested by Flatt. On the subj. with εἰς ἢ γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ, ἀλλὰ [τῷ] θεῷ' οὐδεὶς ABDFK γὰρ " ἀκούει, ° πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ Ρ μυστήρια" ὃ ὁ δὲ | προ- φητεύων ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ 4 οἰκοδομὴν καὶ "παράκλησιν καὶ "παραμυθίαν. 4 ὁ "λαλῶν ™ γλώσσῃ ἑαυτὸν "οἰκοδομεῖ, ὁ δὲ |! προφητεύων ἐκκλησίαν * οἰκοδομεῖ. LPNab ecdefe@ bhkim 0 17. 47 3—8. TL ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσω, ἐὰν μὴ ὑμῖν λαλήσω ἢ Y ἐν ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 591 ? «ἢ ae z aT οκαλὺ- y ch. ii. 7, 13. Matt. xiii. 3, vn > Υ̓ DY a oss ὃ wer ἢ " ἐν δ᾿ γνώσει ἢ Y ἐν ὁ προφητείᾳ ἢ Y ἐν ” διδαχῇ ; * 76 δς 7° 6uws τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν " διδόντα, ἴ εἴτε 8 αὐλὸς ΄ εἴτε U d\ j \ val ie \ A a " κιθάρα, ἐὰν ἱ διαστολὴν τοῖς * φθόγγοις μὴ ° δῷ, πῶς θ , x ] > / x \ m θ ’ Es 8 \ γνωσθήσεται τὸ 'avAovpevov ἢ TO ™ κιθαριζόμενον ; 8 καὶ ὟΝ ῇ \ A yap ἐὰν " ἄδηλον °dovnv “ σάλπιγξ ° δῷ, Tis » Tapa- 42. Gal. iii. 15 only. 2 Mace. xv. 5. only. 1 Kings x. Fal. (-λητής, Matt. ix. 23.) i Kom. x. 12 reff. I Matt. xi. i7 || L. only +. i d here only t. xxiv. 29. Isa. xiii. 10. ἠχὼ διδοῦσα θόρυβον, Eur. Hec. 1093. m Rey. xiv. 2 only. 7. Gal. ii. 2. Rey. i. 1 f. (1 Kings xx. 30. Sir. xi. 27 al.) ach, xu. 2 (reff.). b Acts ii. 42 reff. ce John xii. Wisd. xiii. 17. xiv. 29 only. e = Matt. f ch. xiii. 8 reff. g here h Rey. v. 8. xiv. 2. xv.2only. Gen. iv. 21 2]. k Rom. x. 18 only, from Ps. xviii. 4. Wisd. xix. 18 only. Isa. xxili. 16. n = here (Luke x. 44) only. (Ps. 1. 6 (8].) 2 Macc. vii. 34 only. Polyb. viii. 3. 2, ἄδηλοι ἐλπίδες, and al. (-Aws, ch. ix. 26. -λότης, 1 Tim, vi. 17.) . 2 Cor. ix. 2,3 only. o Matt. xxiv. 31. Jer, xil. ὃ. Damase. [for vuas] υμιν P. Rey. i. 10. viii. 18, Exod. xix. 16, 19, p Acts om Ist 4# δὲ ¢ 17 [D-lat] syr copt [Th] ]. om last ev D'[-gr] F[-gr] ΝῚ Ὁ tol harl?. (am [demid] D-lat om 2nd εν : am harl? [demid tol] F-lat D-lat om 3rd.) 7. μη bef διαστολὴν τ. φθογγ. D'F. arm Ambrst. Chr, [Euthal-ms] (ce. giving a sense not distinguishable from the ind., see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. ὁ. 2 end, and Herm., on Soph. Ant. 706. 6.] Hxam- ple of the unprofitableness of speaking with tongues without interpreting,—expressed in the first person as of himself. γῦν δέ] ‘quod cum ita sit’—viz. that there is no edification without interpretation. ἐὰν ἔλθω] Chrys. understands the first person to imply ‘not even Z myself should profit you,’ &e. But then αὐτὸς ἐγώ or some expression similarly emphatic would have been used. The second ἐάν is pa- rallel to the first, not dependent on ὠφε- λήσω. It is the negative side of the sup- position, as ἐὰν ἔλθω «.7.A. was the affirma- tive. On this double apodosis Hermann remarks, Soph. Aj. 827,—‘ Est enim hee verborum complexio ex eo genere, cujus jam apud Homerum exempla inveniuntur, quod duplicem habet apodosin, alteram prainissai, sequeutem alteram : que ratio ibi maxime apta est, ubi in magno animi motu, quasi non satis sit id quod preemissum est, aliud infertur secunda apodosi, quod gravius sit et fortius.’ ἢ ἐν atrox..... ] It seems best here, with Estius, to under- stand ‘duo juga, ut conjugata sint reve- latio et prophetia, ac rursus conjugata scientia et doctrina.’ So also Meyer, who observes that the ground of προφητεία is ἀποκάλυψις, and that of διδαχή, γνῶσις: the former being a direct speaking in the Spirit, and the latter a laying forth by the aid of the Spirit of knowledge acquired. Thus ἐν, as referred to amok. and γνώσ. denotes the internal element :—as referred to mpop. and 6:5, the external element, of the spiritual activity. 7—11.] In- stances to shew that unintelligible discourse profits nothing. And first,—7—9.] from musical instruments. 7.) ὅμως occurs for τοις φθογγοις, φθογγου B tol D-lat διδω D3LP rel Thdrt Damase Thl: δωτε K: txt ABD!(F 8 ἢ γνωσθη (for -θησεται) D'F [scietur latt]. 8. σαλπ. bef pwynv APN ἃ 17.119 coptt Orig). dey D', here and in the two other places where it is used in the N.T. (reff.) at the begin- ning of the sentence, out of its logical order, which would be before ἐὰν διαστολὴν . ., thus: Things without life which yield sound, whether flute or harp, yet, if they do not, &c. The renderings, ‘ even things without life’ (E. V.), or ‘things which, though without life, yet givesound’ (Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 61. 5. f}, are inadinissible,—the former because of the usage of ὅμιως, the latter because no such idea as any surprise at a thing without life yielding sound is here in place. φων. διδ.} so δίδου φωνάν Pind. Nem. v. 98. ἐὰν Siac. | If they (the ἄψυχα ¢. δ.) shall not have yielded a distinction (of musical inter- vals) in their tones, how shall be known that which is being played on the flute or that which is being played on the harp (i. 6. what tune is played in either case: the art. being repeated to shew that two distinct instances are contemplated, not necessarily ‘ one tune, either piped, or harped’ = τὸ αὐλούμενον ἢ κιθαριζό- μενον ;)? The observation of Meyer, that this example is decisive against forezgn languages being spoken in the exercise of this gift, is shewn to be irrelevant by the next example, from which the contrary might be argued—the ἄδηλος φωνή of the trumpet being exactly analogous to an unknown language, not to an inarticulate sound. But the fact is that all such inferences, from pressing analogies close, are insecure. 8. ἄδηλον, uncertain, in its meaning : for a particular succession of notes of the trumpet then, as now, gave the signals for attack, and retreat, and the various evolutions ofan army. The giving the signal for battle with the trumpet is called by Dio Cassius τὸ πολεμικὰν Bogy, 592 q arrangt. of words, 2 Cor. ii. 4 reff. r here only $. Ps. Ixxx. 3 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOTS A. reff, 10 ᾿ top ἃ,» γ} Dae = 3 2 \ ie ae τοσαῦτα, ‘eu ' τύχοι, ἃ γενη φωνῶν εἰσιν ἐν κόσμῳ, καὶ only. Philo de Mut. Nom. 26, vol. i Ρ 600, μουσικὰ μὲν ἀλλα ὸ yap, e ἐμοὶ * PapPapos. τύχοι, Ke Μ Β ρβ ρ ραμματικα. . -- εἰ τύχοι. Wetst.) see ch. xvi. 6. viii. 32 reff.) w = here only. οὐδὲν ἡ ἄφωνον: 1 ἐὰν οὖν μὴ εἰδῶ τὴν κ᾿ δύναμιν τῆς φωνῆς, ἔσομαι τῷ λαλοῦντι * βάρβαρος, καὶ ὁ λαλῶν ¥ ἐν 12 οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπεὶ * ζηλωταί ἐστε (Dion. Hal. iv. 19, μυρίων ἣ διςμυρ., εἰ τύχοι... . Galen. de usu part. vi., δέκα μέν, v = here only. (Act Dion. Hal., Antt. i. 68, τοῦ 7 μήπω γράμ- ἃ = ch. xii. 10 reff. Num. vi. 21. ματος εὑρημένου, τῷ ὃ δηλοῦν τ. ἐκείνου δύναμιν τ. παλαιούς. Dio Cass. lv. 3, τοιοῦτον γὰρ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτον δηλοῖ. παρασκευαΐεται A Orig,. 9. for εὐσημον, evaxnuov D'[-gr] 21-37. 80. x Acts xxviii. 2, 4 reff. y~ Rom. xi. 25, τ Acts xxi. 20 reff. for dwre, δω L. [at eav μη ... dwre K-marg notes, avti του" εαν μὴ διερμηνευοιτε. 10. om τοσαυτα D! F(with G-lat). note), with KL rel Chr, Thdrt (ἔς : txt ABDFPX 47 Clem, Damase Th. rec (for εἰσι») ἐστιν (gramml corrn: see ins Tw bef koruw D'F b ο, hoc vulg-ed ([fuld demid &c] and F-lat, not am) Ambrst Bede. rec aft ovdev ins avrwy (addn for precision), with D3KLN% rel G-lat syrr Chr, Thdrt : om ABD'FPN! ἃ 17 vulg E-lat coptt arm Clem, [Euthal-ms] Damase Ambrst Bede. aft apwvoy ins ἐστιν D!F vulg [not E-lat: pref ο]. 11. for εαν, εἰ P. vulg [ Ambrst ]). io AD'Lam 17: γινωσκω F(si ergo nesciero F-lat, and so om last clause (homeotel) L al. om ev DF latt syrr copt arm Clem Chrexpr(o ἐμοὶ Aad. βαρβ.) Damase [ Ambrst]. by lian τὸ παρορμητικὸν ἐμπνεῖν : see Wetst., where many examples are to be found. 9 Application of these instances. La τ. γλώσσης is most naturally understood physically, by means of your tungue, as answering to the utterance of the sound by the musical in- struments. But the technical rendering, by means of the tongue (in the sense of γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν), is allowable. ἔσεσθε . . . λαλ.] This periphrasis of the future implies, ye will be, so long as ye speak, speaking, ... On eis ἀέρα, see ref. : it implies the noa-reception by hearers of what is sail, 10, 11.] Another ex- ample of the unprofitableness ofan utter- ance not understood. 10.] εἰ τύχοι, if it should so happen, i. 6. peradventure: —it is commonly found with numerical nouns; but sometimes with hypothetical sentences in general, as in ch. xv. 37. See reff. and examples in Wetst. It will not bear the rendering ‘for example,’ though in meaning it nearly approaches it. It belongs here to τοσαῦτα, itself represent- ing some fixed number, but not assignable by the information which the writer pos- sesses, or not worth assigning. See similar expressions, Acts v. 8,—and 2 Sam. xii. 8 in KE. V. γένη φωνῶν kinds of lan- guages: the more precise expression would be γένη φωνῆς, or φωναί: we can hardly say, with Meyer, that each language is a γένος φωνῶν. The use of φωνῶν, and not γλωσσῶν, is no doubt intentional, toe avoid confusion, γλῶσσα being for the most part used in this passage ina peculiar meaning: but no argument can be grounded on it as to the γλῶσσαι being languages or not. εἰσίν (plur.), because it is wished to distinguish them in their variety. ov- δέν, 5011. γένος. Bleek renders, ‘no ratio- nal animal is without speech ;’ and Grot., reading as the rec. αὐτῶν, understands it as ‘referring to men: others supply €@vos to οὐδέν. Butthe common rendering is both simpler, and better sense: none of them is without signification, as Εἰ. V.: or, is inarticulate. 11.] οὖν, seeing that none is without meaning: for if any were, the imputations following would not be just. We assume that a tongue which we do not understand has a meaning, and that it is the way of expression of some foreign nation. BapBapos,—a foreigner, in the sense of one who is ignorant of the speech and habits of a people. So Ovid, Trist. v. 10,—* Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli:’ and Herod. ii. 158,— βαρβάρους δὲ πάντας of Αἰγύπτιοι καλέ- ovat τοὺς μή σφισι ὁμογλώσσους. (Wetst.) The appellation always conveyed a certain contempt, and such is evidently intended here. So Ovid, in the next line,—‘ Et rident stolidi verba Latina Geta.’ ἐν ἐμοί, in my estimation: so Eurip. Hippol. 1335, σὺ δ᾽ ἔν τ᾽ ἐκείνῳ κἂν ἐμοὶ φαίνῃ Kaxds,— ‘in his judgment and in mine:’ see Kihner, ii. 275. 12.| Application of the ana- logy, as in ver. 9, ‘The οὕτως is evidently meant as in ver. 9, but is rendered some- what difficult by the change of the con- struction into a direct exhortation. It is best therefore to suppose an ellipsis; and ATVs ’ > ΄ ἐδ \ e A ὃ Ἢ a σκευάσεται εἰς πόλεμον; ϑοὕτως Kal ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς γλώσσης “ ἐὰν μὴ "εὔσημον λόγον © δῶτε, πῶς γνωσθή- σεται τὸ λαλούμενον ; ἔσεσθε γὰρ εἰς ὃ" ἀέρα λαλοῦντες. ABDFK LPRab cdefg hkim υ 17. 47 9---]4. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ Α. 593 a f b Ἁ \ be , ὃ \ Lal νυ / ka 2. πνευμάτων, ὃ πρὸς τὴν "' οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἕη- « -- οἱ. xii.10 Τ' lal / τεῖτε, ἵνα ° περισσεύητε. & προςευχέσθω ὅ ἵνα ὃ" διερμηνεύῃ. 13 διὸ ὁ f λαλῶν f γλώσσῃ b = Βοπι.χν. 2. c Rom. xiv. 19 14 ἐὰν yap MposEevYO- eabdsol., Matt = sol., Matt. yee ee ΣΝ 7 Ν ἡ “ ΄ ΄ φ Ν ra wage μαι γλώσσῃ, τὸ imvedud μου προςεύχεται, ὁ δὲ νοῦς , He, Matt. xxiv. 201} Mk. Mark xiv. 38. ch. xii. 30 reff. i 12. πνευματικων P 23-mg 73 spec sah Ambr,. (G-lat has both.) xpopynreunte A 73 Ambrst. (ὅπως, Acts viii. 15.) i= Acts xvii. 16 reff. Phil. i. 9. Col. i. 9. iv. 3. 2 Thess. i.J1. iii, 1. for περισσευήτε, 13. rec διόπερ, with KLN3 rel Chr, Thdrt Thl @e: txt ABDFPR! 17 Damasce. 14. om yap B F[{-gr G-lat] sah arm: ins ADKLP® rel vulg(and F-lat) E-lat syrr copt Chr, Thdrt Damasc Th] Gc Orig-int, Ambrst Aug, Pel Sedul Bede. (17 def [but om appy, Tischdf Treg ].) give to οὕτως the pregnant meaning, after the lesson conveyed by this example. Meyer’s rendering, since in such a manner (i. e. so as to be barbarians to one another) we also are emulous, &c., is very harsh, be- sides making the second clause, standing as it does without a μᾶλλον or any disjunctive particle, mean (and I do not see that it will bear any other meaning), seek this BapBapopwria to the edifying of the Church. Thus likewise ye (i.e. after the example of people who would not wish to be barbarians to one another,—avoiding the absurdity just mentioned), emulous as ye are of spiritual gifts (reff.), seek them to the edifying of the church, that ye may abound: or perhaps (but I can tind no instance of ζητῶ ἵνα thus used: ch. iv. 2 is no case in point, see note there) as in E. V. ‘ seek that ye may excel (abound in them) ¢o the edifying of the church.’ 13.] Hortatory inference Srom the foregoing examples. There is some difficulty in the construction of this verse. προςευχ. ἵνα Stepp. is ren- dered by Chrys., Theodoret, ‘Theophyl., Erasm., Beza, Calv., Grot., Estius, Wetst., Bleek, Riickert, Olsh., al., ‘pray that he may interpret. But the next verse shews that this is untenable. For the act of προΞξεύχεσθαι γλώσσῃ is there introduced in strict logical connexion with this verse, so as to shew that the mposevyéo@w here inust have the same meaning as there, viz., that of praying in a tongue, openly in the church. Seeing this, Luther, Rosenm., al., render it, ‘let..... so pray, that he may interpret : i.e. ‘not pray, unless he can interpret.’ But this rendering of ἵνα is hardly allowable even where οὕτω is ex- pressed, see note on ch. ix. 24. The knot of the difficulty lies in the relation of ἵνα to verbs of this kind. It may be doubted whether in such expressions as mposevxeo- θαι ἵνα (see reff.), the conj. ever represents the mere purport of the prayer, as in our “to pray, that.” The idea of purpose is inseparably bound up in this particle, and can be traced wherever it is used. Thus mposevx. ἵνα seems always to convey the Vou. II. meaning, “to pray, in order that.” At the same time, prayer being a direct seeking of the fulfilment of the purpose on account of which we pray,—not, like many other actions, indirectly connected with it,—the purport and purpose become compounded in the expression. This will be illustrated by γρηγορεῖτε k. mpos- εύὐχεσθε, ἵνα μὴ εἰεξέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν: where it is plain enough that ἵνα μή re- presents the ulterior object of γρηγορεῖτε, and, now that it is joined with γρηγορεῖτε, of προφξεύχεσθε: but had it been merely, mposevxerde ἵνα μὴ K.T.A., the above con- fusion would have occurred. Now this confusion it is, which makes the words mposevxécOw ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ so difficult. Obviously, the προξευχέσθω is not merely used to express a seeking by prayer of the gift of interpretation, on account of the sense in the next verse: but as plainly, there is in προφξευχέσθω a sense which passes on to ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ. The render- ing of Meyer and De Wette, ‘ pray, with a view to interpret (what he has spoken in a tongue),’ is unobjectionable, but does not give any reason for the choice of mposeu- χέσθω, any more than εὐχαριστείτω, or the like. I believe the true rendering to be pointed out by the distinction in the next verse. If a man prays in a tongue, his spirit prays, but his understanding is barren. This prayer of his spirit is, the intense direction of his will and affections to God, accompanied by the utterance of sounds to him unintelligible. ‘ Let then him who speaks with a tongue, pray, when he does pray, with an earnest striving (in this prayer of his spirit) after the gift of interpretation.’ 'The meaning might be more strictly given thus in English: where- fore let him who speaketh with a tongue, in his prayer (or, when praying), strive that he may interpret. 14. This verse has been explained above. It justifies the necessity of thus aiming at the gift of interpretation. τὸ mv. pov, not as in ver. 32, and Chrys. (Hom. xxxv. p. 325) τὸ χά- ρισμα Td δοθέν μοι καὶ κινοῦν τὴν γλῶσσαν, —but as in reff., my (own) spirit, taking Qe 594 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. XIV, nies kG ἧς ἐστιν. 15! ri οὖν ἐστιν 3 mposevEouat τῷ k Matt. αἱ, 9 μου “ ἄκαρπος ἐστιν. τί οὗ v3 “προςεύξομ ῷ | Mk. pa. . , , a he r na: ΄ vl Tit, πνεύματι, προςεύξομαι δὲ καὶ τῷ νοΐ" τὰ «ψαλῶ τῷ ἱπνεύ- Hl, . ἣν τε x \ Ξ 7 4 ᾿Ξ . , only, Jer ἢ, ματι, ψαλῶ δὲ καὶ τῷ νοΐ. 10 ἐπεὶ ἐὰν ™ εὐλογῇς | πνεύ- 6. isd. XV. ς a . , - > ΄ - a fonly. 4 MATL, O 9 ἀναπληρῶν τὸν Ρ τόπον ποῦ “ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ ‘ver. 26. rire ΕΑΝ Μὰ iS εὐ. ἘΠ Co) olen | pe , v2 ὃ) ΄ at 7 > here bls, τὸ τ ἀμὴν ' ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ " εὐχαριστίᾳ, " ἐπειδὴ TL λέγεις οὐκ Rom. xv. 9, ΄“ - > « from Ps. xvii. οἶδεν ; 17 σὺ μὲν γὰρ Y καλῶς " εὐχαριστεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ Yo Y ἕτε- 49. Eph. v. i 2 , 19. James ν. 13 only. n ch. x.'16 reff. o = here (Matt. xiii. 14. ch. xvi. 11. Gal. νὶ. 2. Phil, ii. 30. 1 Thess. ii. 16)-only$. (Gen. xxix. 28 al.) Jos. 'Β.. ν. 3. δ, , στρατιώτου τάξιν ἀναπληροῦν. Philo, Flace, 12, vol. ii. _p. 531, πρεσβευτοῦ τάξ. ἐκπλήσω. Tac. Ann. iv. 38, “locum principem impleam.” p = here only. Sir. xui..12. q Acts iv. 13.reff. τ #Cor.i. 20. s = Rev. v.14. Neh. ν. 13. viii. 6 al. t = Acts xi. 19. 2Cor. xii. 21. “Héb. viii. 1. u Acts xxiv. 3 reff, vy Acts xy. 24 reff. w ch. vii. 37 reff. «x abs.,ch. xi. 24 reff. y'Rom. ii. 1 reff. 15. om τι ovy εστιν K. προξευξωμαι (twice) ADEP 47: ~wuerand -ξομαι NR: txt BKL rel Orig, Eus, (Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc: orabo latt Orig-int, Ambr Ambrst ] (566 note). om Ist δε FKP 35. 46. 109-14 latt Syr sah arm Orig.(om καὶ also,) [Euthal-ms] Damase Orig-int[sepe Ambrst]: ins ABDL& rel syr [copt] Orig, Eus, Chr, Thdrt ΤῺ] ec. om τω (bef:2nd mvevuatr) FP. om 2nd δε BF 46. 109 latt Syr sah eth arm Orig,(where he has the 1st δε) Cees, [Ath,] Ps-Ath, Damase Thl Orig-int, [Ambrst].: ins ADKLPX rel-syr.coptOrig[{-c], Kus, Ath, Chr, [Euthai- ms] Thdrt ‘ic (homeotel in 47 νοι to νοι). 16. rec evaoynons, with FKL rel:Chr, Thdrt Thl Gc; denediweris latt : txt ABDPR b! 17 [Euthal-ms] Damasc. rec ins tw bef πνευματι (to conform to last ver: but see note), with KL rel Chr, Thdrt: ev B(sic: see table) 1}}Ὁ ) 5: om AFR?! 17 [ Euthal-ms ] Damase. om τὸ F. for επειδη, ere: B, ουκ οιδεν bef τι λεγεις F(not F-lat) E-lat G-lat [Ambrst].Jer, Aug,. 17. αλλα Bl. himself as an example, :as above, wer. 6: “8 use of the word familiar to our Apostle, and here necessary on account of 6 νοῦς pou following, ‘ When I :pray in a tongue, my higher being, my spirit, filled with the Holy Ghost, is inflamed with holy desires, and rapt in prayer: but my éutellectual part, having no matter before iton which its powers can be exercised, ‘bears no fruit to the edification of others (nor of myself’ but this is not expressed in ἄκαρπος ; "αἴ, the usage of καρπός by Paul,—Row. i. 13 ; vi. 21, 22; xv. 28; Gal. v. 22,:al.). 15.] What then is (the case) (i.e. :as our ‘What then?’ Cf. τί οὖν, Rom. iii. 9; vi. 15. ‘ What is my determination there- upon ?’)? I will pray (on the reading προςεύξωμαι; see note on Rom. v. 1) with the (ny) spirit: I will pray also with my mind (i.e. will interpret my prayer for the benefit of myself and the church), &e. This resolution, or expression of self-obliga- tion, evidently leads to the inference, by and by clearly expressed, ver. 28, that if he could not pray τῷ vot, he would keep silence. ψαλῶ | hence we gather that the two departments in which the gift of tongues wis exercised were prayer and praise. On the day of Pentecost it was confined to the latter of these. 16. | The discourse changes from the first person to the second, as De W. observes, because the hypothesis contains .an imputation of folly or error. ἐὰν εὐλ. if thou ehalt have blessed in spirit (no art. now: the dat. is uow merely of the manner in «οὐδοῦ, the element.; not of the specific instrument, as in the last verse), how shall he that fills (i. e. is in) the situation of a private man (ἰδιώτης, in speaking of any business or trade, signifies a lay person, i.e. one ‘unacquainted with it as his employ- ment. Thus in state matters, it is one out of office—Anpoobever ὄντι ἰδιώτῃ, Thue. iv. 2; in philosophy, one uneducated and rude. —juets μὴν οἱ ἰδιῶται οὐ δεδοίκαμεν, ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ φιλόσοφοι δειλιᾶτε, Diog. Laert. Aris- tipp. 11. 71, ἄο. &e. See examples in Wetst. So here it is,.one who has not the gift of speaking and interpreting. The word τόπον is not to be taken literally, as if the ἰδιῶται had any separate seats in the con- gregation: the expression, as in ref., is figurative) say the AMEN (the Amen always said: see Deut. xxvii. 15—26 Heb. and E. V. (UXX, γένοιτο) ; Neh. viii. 6. From the synagogue,—on which see Wetst., Schéttg..in loc., Winer, Realw., art. Syna-: gogen, and Philo, Fragm. vol. ii. p. 680— 'συνεδρεύουσι . . . » οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ σιωπῇ, πλὴν εἴ τι προξεπιφημίσαι τοῖς ἀναγινω- σκομένοις νομίζεται,---ἰῦ passed into the Christian church; so Justin Mart. Apol. i. 65, p. 82, οὗ (scil. τοῦ mpoeatStos) συν- τελέσαντος τὰς εὐχὰς Kal THY εὐχαριστίαν, πᾶς ὃ παρὼν λαὺς πανευφημεῖ λέγων, ἀμήν. See Suicer, sub voc. and Stanley’s note’ here) to (at the end of) thy thanksgiving, since what thou sayest he knows not? This is, as Doddridge has remarked, deci- sive against the practice of praying and praising in an unknown tongue, as ridi- ABDFK LPRab cdefg hklm ο 17. 47 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. 59 Or pos οὐκ 5 οἰκοδομεῖται. « an nw 4 nw 7 Ὁ 4 ὑμῶν μᾶλλον " γλώσσῃ ὃ λαλῶ" 19 ἀλλὰ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ “ θέλω ὃ Rom |S τεῖ. c here only. 2 Mace. xiv. , , a “Ν᾿ [9] πέντε λόγους τῷ νοΐ μου λαλῆσαι, ἵνα καὶ ἄλλους ἃ κατ- 3 b) / , ὦ. ee ηχήσω, “ ἢ *wupiovs λόγους ἐν γλώσσῃ. 70 ᾿Αδελφοί, 4 Acts xviii. 25 nm lal Η / str., Matt. μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς ὃ φρεσίν" ἀλλὰ TH ὃ κακίᾳ | νηπιά- “ Sri xvili. 8,9 A \ lal U ζετε, ταῖς δὲ ὃ φρεσὶν ὃ τέλειοι γίνεσθε. 21 ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέ- 18 ἃ εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, πάντων 2 Actsix. 31 es ᾿ reff 2. Gen. xxxviii. 26. f Matt. xviii. 24. ch. iv. 15 only. Esth. iii. 9. g here bis only. Prov. XViii. 2. h Rom. i. 29. ch. ν. 8. Eph. iv. 31 al. Ps. li. 3 (δ). i here only+. {(-πιος, ch. xiii. 11.) k = ch.ii.6. Heb. ν. 14 ἃ]: 1Chron. xxv. 8. 18. rec aft τω θεω ins μου (addn from such places as chi. 4, Romi. 8 &e: 38 eth arm even further add περι), with KL rel [vulg-clem demid harl] Thdrt|-ed] Damase Ambrst Pel: om ABDFPR 17 E-lat G-lat am(with tol) syrr copt ath arm Chr, [ Euthal- ms] Thdrt-ms Jer, Sedul Bede, (om [tw] θεω F-lat.) ins ot: bef παντων F latt syrr copt lat-ff. γλωσση bef μαλλαον ΕἾ -gr(and G-lat)] : om μαλλον 411 D-lat Chr-ms. —omnium vestrum lingua loquor vulg(and F-lat). rec yAwooats, with BELP rel syrr copt eth Chr, Thdrt Orig-int,: txt ADF 17 latt arm Damase Ambrst Pel Bede. rec Aadwv (the bare present aft evx. was not understood, and thus some helped at with ort, some by turning Aadw into λαλων. Or λαλων was understoad to belong to evxapiotw, ‘I give thanks, speaking, &c.), with KU rel Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase: om A; txt BDFPR ὁ 17 latt syrr copt arm Orig-int, lat-ff. 19. (adda, so ABD: om N}.) rec δία Tov voos (see note. If tw νοι had come Srom ver 15, μου would prob have been amd), with ΚΤ, rel D-lat syr Mac, Chr, Thdrt Max-conf, Phot[-c,] Thl Gc: δια τον vouay (omg μου) Mcion-e,, per legem Ambrst-txt [ed-ven]; in lege Paulin,: txt AB D[-gr] (F)[P]8 m (17) vulg Syr copt [arm(omg ov) | Nys, Epiph, Damase [Amby, ].—7o v. μ. bet π. Aoy. 17,—AaAn o μεν (sic) bef τω ἊΝ Ve εἰς: 20. wa ταις pp, τελ. γενῆσθε, omg δε, F D-lat Orig-int, Ambrst Aug Gaud, 21. aft vouw ins τι &!(N3 disapproving). culously practised in the church of Rome. 17.] καλῶς is not ironical, but con- cessive: it is not the act of thanksgiving an a tongue that the Apostle blames, for that is of itself good, being dictated by the Spirit : but the doing it not to the edi- fication of others. 6 ἕτερος, the ἰδιώ- 7s spoken of before, 18, 19.] De- claration of his own feeling on the matter, highly endowed as he was with the gift. I thank God, I speak with a tongue (have the gift of speaking with tongues) more than you all. This juxtaposition of two clauses, between which ‘ that’ is to be sup- plied in the sense, is not unusual: βούλει σκοπῶμεν - ‘fac videas,—Eur. Hippol. 567, ἐπίσχετ᾽, αὐδὴν τῶν ἔσωθεν ἐκμάθω. Hom. Od. B. 195, Τηλεμάχῳ δ᾽ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐγὼν ὑποθήσομαι αὐτός, Μητέρα ἣν ἐς πατρὸς ἄνωγέτω ἀπονέεσθαι. See Har- tung, Partikell. ii. p. 134. 19. ἐν ἐκ- κλησίᾳ, in (the) assembly, ‘in the congre- gation’ [this is the better rendering here, and wherever there is a chance of the word churoh being mistaken as meaning a building ],—not ‘in an assembly,’as Meyer, The art. is omitted after a preposition : so Middleton, ch. vi. § 1; the logical account of which is, that the prep. serves to cate- _ gorize the substantive following it, and so make it general instead of particular. θέλῳ.. .. ἥ, as βούλομαι, ἤ, Jl. α. 117: similarly ἐπιθυμέω, ζητέω,--- see Hartung, ii. p. 72, διὰ τοῦ νοός has probably been a correction, because λαλεῖν τῷ vot was found harsh, the understand- ing being only the indirect instrument. 20.] With this exhortation he con- cludes this part of his argument, in which he reproves the folly of displaying and being anxious for a gift in which there was no edification. § ἀδελφοί suavem vim habet,’ Bengel. ταῖς φρεσίν, in your understandings, as this preference shews youto be. τῇ κακίᾳ -- dat. of reference, as regards vice : see Winer, edn. 6, § 31.6. 21—25.] By a citation from the O, T. he takes occasion to shew that tongues are a sign to the unbelieving only: and that even for them they are profitless in comparison with prophecy. 21, ] ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, as John x. 34; xii. 845 xv. 25; —where the Psalms are thus quoted. The passage stands in the LXX : διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, διὰ γλώσσης ἑτέρας ὅτι λαλή- σουσι τῷ λαῷ TovTw...K. οὐις ἠθέλησαν ἀκούειν. The context is thus: The scoffers in Jerusalem (see ver. 14) are introduced as scorning the simplicity of the divine commands, which were line upon line, pre- cept upon precept, as if to children (vv. 9, 10). Jehovah threatens them that, since , they would not hear these simple com- mands, He would speak to them by men of other tongues, viz. the Assyrians, their captors. Here as in many other cases, QQ2 596 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOT® A. XIV. Ὅ > ] e » , δ τα m XN, n ΑΝ there only. γραπται Ὅτι ἐν | ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν ™ χείλεσιν ” ἑτέρων ABDFK (Isa. xxviii. ᾿ a A , LPNab 1) Ps-cxi λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ, καὶ °ovd Ὁ οὕτως “ εἰςξακούσονται caefg ate wi 7, “ e a > a hklm mo Mit Rn μου, λέγει κύριος. 72 ὥςτε αἱ "γλῶσσαι " εἰς ᾿ σημεῖον ο 17. 47 Isa. xxix. 13.) Rom, iii. 13. Heb. (xi. 12.) xiii. 15. 1 Pet. iii. 10 only. n= Acts ii. 4. > Sivek ’ ”~ ’ » δ᾿ al u » / e δὲ Vv εἰσὶν οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς " ἀπίστοις, ἡ O€ προ- ’ > -“ ΠῚ » / > Ν a / 93 7% φητεία ov τοῖς " ἀπίστοις ἀλλὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. €av / Ὁ ‘\ Exod. xxx.9. οὖν ¥* συνέλθῃ ἡ Y ἐκκλησία Υ ὅλη ™ ἐπὶ TO αὐτὸ καὶ πάντες ο-- ch.v.1 reff. p = Rom. v. 12 reff. r Acts ii. 4 reff. u = ch. vi. 6 reff. y Rom. xvi. 23 reff. i. 43. t Rom. iv. 11 reff. x ch. xi. 20. Josh. ix. 2. for erepoyAwooos, eTepais yAwooas F lect-8 vulg copt goth Tert;. q Matt. vi.7. Lukei.13. Acts χ. 381. Heb. v.7only. Deut, $ 80 εἰς μαρτύριον, ἄς. Matt. viii. 4 al. fr. Jer. ix. 22. v ch. xiii. 2 reff. w = Actsi. 3 reff. z Acts i. 15 reff. rec ετεροις, with D[F]KLP rel [latt Syr(Zingua alia) syr copt goth 2th arm] Orig, Constt, Chr, [Cyr,] Damase ΤῊ] (ἔς [Tert, Ambrst]: txt ABN 17 [Cyr,-ms,-p]. (Meyer thinks the dat a mere mechanical corrn to suit the other datives.) e:sakovocerat F(not [F]-lat) 43. 113 lect-14. [not F-lat]. for ovd ovtws, ουδεπω F 22. for (2nd) morevovow, motos F [vulg Ambr,. (G-lat has both.) ] 23. om ουν F[-gr] 67? old-iat goth Ambr, Ambrst. oAn bef 7 εκκλησια DF latt goth [Syr goth Ambr, Ambrst ]. for συνελθη, ελθη BG). Tec TWavTes γλωσσαις λαλωσιν, with [D?-gr] KL [47(-ουσιν}] rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr arm Chr-txt, [yA. π. A.,] Thdrt Damase (He Vict-vit Bede: Aad. παν. yA. copt wth Ambrst: Aaa. ya. παν. D!-3[and lat] goth: txt AB F[-gr(and G-lat)] P® Bas, [Euthal-ms] ΤῊ]. the historical sense is not so much con- sidered, as the aptness of the expressions used for illustrating the matter in hand ; viz. that belief would not be produced in the unbelieving by speaking to them in strange tongues. The ὅτι answers in the LXX to, ‘for ;’ or ‘yea verily,’ as Louth. It forms part of the citation, not of the text. ἐν érep.] in (in the person of) men of other tongues: Heb. with another tongue ;—and it is placed second. The Apostle personifies it and gives it the pro- minence. ἐν x. €r.] in (as speaking in, using as the organ of speech) lips of others (strangers, see reff.): Heb. in (by) stammerers of lip: Louth, with a stam- mering lip. τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ] in Isa., the Israelites: here taken generally for the unbelieving world. οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰςακούσ.} This is the point of the pas- sage for St. Paul’s argument : see ver. 23: —‘for them, and not for us: but even for them, profitless in the main :’—not even under such circumstances will they listen to me: even this sign will be for them ineffectual. 22.) Ssre,—viz. according to the words of the foregoing prophetic passage. ai yA.| the tongues, in the ¢hen acceptation of the term. He is not interpreting the pro- phecy, nor alluding to the tongues there spoken of, but returns back to the subject in hand—tke tongues about which his ar- gument was concerned. εἰς onp. εἰσίν] are for a sign: but there is no emphasis on the words,—the meaning being much the same as if εἰς σημεῖον were omitted, and it stood ὥςτε ai yA. εἰσὶν οὐ τοῖς π. Not seeing this, Commentators have dif- tered widely about the meaning of σημεῖον. So Chrys. (Hom. xxxvi. p. 335): εἰς σημεῖον, τουτέστιν, eis ExmAntw:—Bengel: ‘ quo allecti auscultare debebant :’'—Calvin: ‘lin- gue, quatenus in signum date sunt:’ &e. &e. All dwelling on the word σημεῖον would introduce an element foreign to the argument, which is, that tongues are (a sign) for the unbelieving, not for the be- lieving. ov τ. πιστ.) not to men who believe, but to unbelievers, i.e. “men who do not believe :’ not, as Nean- der, Billroth, Riickert, and in substance De Wette, ‘men who will not believe :’ ἄπιστος must be kept to the same sense through this whole passage, and plainly by ver. 23 it is not one who will not believe, but an unbeliever open to conviction. The mistake has been occasioned by regarding those to whom the prophecy was directed, and interpreting Paul by Isaiah, instead of by himself. ἡ δὲ mpod.] scil. ἐστίν, as Meyer, or εἰς onu. ἐστίν, as De Wette: it seems to me to import little which we supply, seeing that eis onu. is of so very slight weight in the preceding clause. If emphatic meaning had been attached to σημεῖον as belonging to ai yA., we must not have supplied it here: but if it be a mere indifferent word, to be interpreted accord- ing to the sense in which af yA. and 7 mpop. were σημεῖα, there can be no objec- tion to it here: and the uniformity of con- struction seems to require it. Both here and above, tots ἀπίστ. and the other are datives commodi-—for, not ‘to,’ the unbelieving. ἡ προφητεία was a sign to the unbelieving, see vv. 24, 25. Pro- phecy, i.e. tnspired and intelligent expo- sition of the word and doctrine, was emi- nently for believers, but, as below, would “..«Εδιω- Tat P, : ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. 597 fal , aA λαλῶσιν γλώσσαις, εἰξέλθωσιν δὲ ἰδιῶται ἢ υ ἄπιστοι, οὐκ aver. 16. ἐροῦσιν ὅτι ὃ μαίνεσθε ; 34 ἐὰν δὲ πάντες Sa θ 5ὲ u Wee , ; εἰξέλθῃ ὃέ τις ἃ ἄπιστος ἢ 5 ἰδιώτης, ᾿ b ae xii. 15 c reff. προφητεύωσιν, ech. xi. 4,5 ἃ >>. 4 οι ΄ reff. γὶ ἐλέγχεται ὕπο παάν- ἃ = Jonniii, 20. Ps. xlix. των, © ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων, 35 τὰ ἴ oe 21. ’ ρ ων, τὰ ᾿ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρ- δί > “ δ \ g / \ h .“ Ϊ \ b] tas cutov ὃ φανερὰ 8 γίνεται, καὶ "οὕτως ἱπεσὼν ἐπὶ i / τ 4 lal θ A 1 > A cd m » TPOswTroy “προςκυνήσει τῷ Cew, | ἀπαγγέλλων ὅτι τὸ ὄν- e Acts iv. 9 reff. \ f Rom. ii. 16 reff. gz ch. xi. 19 reff. h = ver. 21. Rom. v. 12 i Matt. xvii. 6. xxvi. 39. Luke v. 12. xvii. 16. Rey. xi. 16. Num. xvi. 4. xx. 6. reff. k Paul, here and Acts xxiv. 11 only. dat., Matt. ii. 2 al. fr. 1 John i. 2,3 only. Gen. xiv. 13. Num. xxii. 37 only. Heb. ii. 12. 1 Tim. vy. 5 al. passim. elsw.,1 Thess. i. 9, 32. Luke xxiii. 47. Ps. xxviii. 2. 1 gospp. and Acts, m = Mark xi. om ἡ απιστοι Bl: infideles et idiote] Ambrst. 24. for 2nd de, re A Syr (eth). om avak. v. π. (homeot) K. 25. rec ins καὶ ουτω bef τα κρυπταί Srom below,—the result being imagined better to begin here ; left, or reintroduced without erasing this Sormer. syr Chr, Thdrt [Damasc]: om ABD!FN 17 latt the follg x. ουτως being by some omd, as Chr Ambr, by some carelessly So Meyer), with D3{-gr] KL rel (Syr) copt goth (eth arm) Orig/-c,- int, Did,] Bas, Chr, (Euthal-ms (Ambr). Syr xth arm Orig-int, Ambr ins xa:.] avayyeAAwy F(not G). be also profitable fo unbelievers, furnish- ing a token that God was truly among his assembled servants. 23—25. | Instances given of the operation of both on the ungifted or the unbeliever. 23.] οὖν, following up the axiom just laid down, by supposing a case —if then -... The first case put answers to the former half of ver. 22: the second, to the latter. The supposition is this: that all the (Corinthian) church is assembled, and all its members speak with tongues (not in a tumultuary manner—that is not part of the present hypothesis, for if it were, it must apply equally to ver. 24, which it clearly cannot :—but that all have the gift, and are in turn exercising it): —then ἰδιῶται, “ plain believers,’ persons unacquainted with the gift and its exercise, come in. It is obvious that the hypothesis of all being assembled, and ald having the gift, must not be pressed to infer that no such ἰδιώτης could be found: no one hypo- thesizes thus rigidly. If any will have it so, then, as Meyer, we may suppose the ἰδιῶται to come from another congrega- tion: but the whole difficulty seems to me mere trifling. The i. plainly cannot be, as De W. maintains, an unbeliever, for his case is separately mentioned. Such plain men, or perhaps a company of unbelievers, have come in :—they have no understand- ing of what is going on: the γλῶσσαι sound to them an unmeaning jargon; and they come to the conclusion, ‘These men are mad ;’ just as men did infer, on the day of Pentecost, that the speakers were drunken. 24.) But if all (see above) prophesy (i. e. intelligibly lay forth, in the power of the Spirit, the Christian word and doctrine) and there enter any (singular now, setting forth that this would be the effect in any case: plural before, to shew that however many there might be, not one could appreciate the gift) unbeliever or plain man (ἄπιστος Jirst now, because the great stress is on the power of prophecy in its greatest achieve- ment, the conversion of the unbeliever ; but ἰδιῶται was first before, because the stress there was on the unprofitableness of tongues, not only to the ἄπιστοι, but to the ἰδιῶται), he is convicted by all (the inspired discourse penetrating, as below, into the depths of his heart,—by all, i.e. by each in turn), he is searched into by all (each inspired speaker opening to him his character), the hidden things of his heart become manifest (those things which he had never before seen are revealed,— his whole hitherto unrecognized personal eharacter laid out. Instances of such re- velations of a man to himself by powerful preaching have often occurred, even since the cessation of the prophetic gift): and thus (thus convicted, searched, revealed to himself :—in sucha state of mind) having fallen on his face, he will worship God, announcing (by that his act, which is a public submission to the divine Power manifest among you: or, but not so well, aloud, by declaration of it in words) that of a truth (implying that previously he had regarded the presence of God among them as an idle tale ; or, if a plain Chris- tian, had not sufficiently realized it) God is among you (or in each of you: by His Spirit). In this last description the ἰδιώτης is thrown into the background, and (see above) the greater achievement of prophecy, the conviction and conversion of the ἄπιστος, is chiefly in view. “Fora similar effect of the disclosure of a man’s secret self to himself, compare the fascina- tion described as exercised by Socrates over his hearers by the ‘ conviction ’ and ‘judg- ment’ of his questions in the Athenian market-place. Grote’s Hist. of Greece, 598 ἢ = 2 Cor. xiii. 9. Ὁ Acts xxi. 22. vex. 15. p = Eph. vy. 19. Col. iii. 16 (Luke xx. 42. xxiv. 44. Acts i. 20. xiii. 33) only. Isa. lxvi. 20. q ver. 6 (reff.). rch. xii. 10 onlyt. Sir. prol. ἃ xlvii. 17 only. (-νεύειν, John i. 43.) 8 ver. 12. t = ver. 40. ch. xvi. 14, xxi. 25. Xen. Anab. iv, 7. 8. Polyb. iv. 20. 10, and al. freq. see Rom. xi. 25 reff. z Acts xii. 17 reff. change of subject, Luke xv. 15. xix. 4. Acts vi. 6. fF. 27 reff. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINO@IOTS A. Twos ὁ θεὸς " ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν. ὅταν © συνέρχησθε, Ex 'ιστος [ὑμῶν] P ψαλμὸν ἔχει, " διδα- \ v > Ud ” “ 7 e / VV ἐχεῖ, 4 ἀποκάλυψιν ἔχει, γλῶσσαν ἔχει, * ἐρμηνείαν ἔχει: πάντα " πρὸς " οἰκοδομὴν " γινέσθω. τὶς λαλεῖ, ἃ κατὰ δύο ἢ " τὸ " πλεῖστον τρεῖς, καὶ δ ¥ μέρος καὶ εἷς * διερμηνευέτω" 38 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἢ Y διερμηνευ- τής, " συγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἑαυτῷ δὲ λαλείτω καὶ τῷ θεῷ. 398 προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν, καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι XIV. 56 οΤύ οὖν ἐστιν, ἀδελφοί ; 27 εἴτε γλώσσῃ ἀνὰ u = Mark vi.40. ἀνά, Luke ix. 8. χ. 1. John ii.6. καθ᾽ ἕνα, Eph. v.33. John v here only. where only. ἀνὰ μ. ἄδειν, y here only +. a Acts xi. (Isa. ix. 3.) x ch. xii. 30 reff, Winer, edn. 6, $ 67. 1. ο. rec o Geos bef οντως, with KL rel syr Chr, Thdrt [Bas, Damasc]: om ovrws k 3. 32 Thdrt-comm : txt AB(DFR) h 17 latt Syr copt goth eth arm Orig-[¢,-]int, [Did, Chr, Euthal-ms Ambr, ].—om o D!FX? 1} 109! Orig[-c], Chr. 26. om vuwy ABN! a 17 copt [Bas, Euthal-ms]: ins DFKLN3 rel [latt syrr goth eth(appy) arm] Chr, Thdrt Damasc [Ambrst ]. om διδαχ. exer (homeotel) A Κα. rec γλωσσαν exer αποκαλυψιν exer (the clauses dropped out by homeotel, and were then confusedly reinserted), with L rel Chr, Thdrt Damasc: om ἀποκαλυψιν exer m 35-9. 42-7. 63 arm Chr-mss: om yAwooay exer K 35-9. 42-3. 57. 911. 106-77. 238 [fuld!: epu. exer yA. ex. goth: | txt ABDFX [d] 17 latt syrr coptt eth Bas, [ Euthal- ms] ΤῊ] Gic-comm [ Ambrst ]. διερμηνειαν DF. rec γένεσθω, with Damasc: txt ABDFKLR® rel Chr [Bas, Euthal-ms] Thdrt &e. 28. for Siepu., epunvevtns BD'F, pref 6 D'F. 29. om οἱ DIFL 1. vili. 609—611.” Stanley. 26—35. | Regulations respecting the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assemblies. 26.] The rule for all, proceeding on the fact of each having his gift to contribute when they come together: viz. that all things must be done with a view to edi- fication. τί οὖν ἐστιν] See ver. 15. ὅτ. ovv.| whenever ye happen to be assembling together: the present vividly describes each coming with his gift, eager to exercise it. ψαλμόν] most probably a hymn of praise to sing in the power of the spirit, as did Miriam, De- borah, Symeon, &c. See ver. 15. διδαχήν) an exposition of doctrine or moral teaching: belonging to the gift of prophecy, as indeed do also Wop. and ἀποκάλ., the latter being something re- vealed to him, to be prophetically uttered. γλώσσαν) a tongue, i.e. an act of speaking in tongues: see vv. 18, 22. ἑρμηνείαν) See below, and ver. 5. πόντ. 3p. ok. yw. | THE GENERAL RULE, afterwards applied to the several gifts: and 27, 28.] fo the speaking with tongues. εἴτε begins the construc- tion, but is not carried on, ver. 29, where προφῆται δέ answers to it. 27.] κατὰ δύο (scil. let it take place), by two (at each time, i. e. im one assembly : not more than two or three might speak with tongues at each meeting) or at the most three, and by turn (one after another, not together) : for eavTw, avtw F. and let one (some one who has the gift,— and not more than one) interpret (what is said in the tongue). 28.] But if there be not an interpreter (Wieseler, in the Stud. und Krit. for 1838, p. 720, would render it, ‘tf he be not an interpreter, viz. himself. But this would exclude the pos- sibility of others interpreting, which we know from ch. xii. 10 might be the case. And thus the preceding εἷς could hardly bear its proper meaning. Wieseler tries to make it mean ‘one at a time. Besides, the emphatic position of 7 seems to require more stress than this sense would give, which would be better expressed by ἐὰν δὲ διερμηνευτὴς μὴ 5). let him (the speaker in a tongue, see reff.) be silent in the church: but (as if ovyarw had been μὴ λα- λείτω) let him speak for himself and for God: i.e. in private, with only himself and God to witness it. Chrys. καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν φθεγγέσθω : which Theophyl. enlarges to τουτέστιν ἀψοφητὶ καὶ ἠρέμα καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν : which does not seem to agree with Aa- Acitw, the speaking being essential to the exercise of the gift. 29—33.] Simz- lar regulations for PROPHECY. 29.]} δέ, transitional. δύο ἢ τρεῖς, viz. at one assembling ;—not together; this is plainly prohibited, ver. 30. There is no τὸ πλεῖστον as in the other case, because he does not wish to seem as if he were limit- ing this most edifying of the gifts. οἱ ἄλλοι, scil. rpopHra:,—or perhaps, any ABDFK LN abe defgh kimo 17. 47 26—33. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 599 \ Ui A > διακρινέτωσαν" 89 ἐὰν. δὲ ἄλλῳ “ ἀποκαλυφθῇ καθημένῳ, 5 ch. νἱ. 5. 5 Hs Ρ 9] ᾿ 5 x δ a ‘ och: ii. 0 ef ὁ πρῶτος ὅ σιγάτω. δύνασθε γὰρ “Kal” ἕνα πάντες 4%," d ΄ “ , 6 , \ , e e = Rom. xii. προφητεύειν, wa Travtes: μανθάνωσιν καὶ TayTEs παρα- Sreff. = CN. ΧΙ. < τ τ ἘΡῚ é ag an Aer ΤΕ ff. καλῶνταυ" “5 καὶ ᾿Ξππνεύματω ξ΄ προφητῶν προφήταις ᾿ὑπο- Β΄... ΄, Σ , 3 ΠΕ , ΠΩΣ , h Luke ii. 51. τάσσεται 88 ov yap ἐστιν ἱ ἀκαταστασίας o 1 θεός, ἀλλὰ ᾿ Rom. viii 7, 20 al. ἢ > lA δ © 3 k / A k 3 ΄ A ] e / ᾽ Ἰειρήνης, ὡς ἐν “πάασαις ταῖς. “ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ᾿ ἁγίων. 1 Chron. i Luke xxi: 9. 2 Cor. vi..5. xii. 20. James iii. 16.only, Prov. xxvi. 28. Tobit iv. 13 (notin δὲ) only. (-στατος͵ Jarnes i: 8.) j Rom. xv. 33 reff: om, xvi..16. ch. vii. 17. 2 Cor. viii. 18. xi. 28 only. l1\Rom.i.7. Acts ix. 13 reff, ανακρινετωσαν DIF, 30. om δὲ D!{and lat] ΕἾ τοῦ G-lat] Orig-int,[: e¢ δὲ Syr: quodsi vulg F-lat] Ambrst. (κα in’ καθημενω is written over the:line; om having been first written, and then marked for erasure by &!.) 31. παντες bef καθ eva DF h! latt Syrarm: om παντες 17 Ambrst: exaoro: 6. 67? : exacTo. παντες 38. 72. 32. for πνευματα, πνευμα Ὁ) ΕἾ -gr(and G-lat)] 1. 43. 52. 67%. 213 [fuld] Syr [Epiph, ] Thdrt Orig-int,{-ed Did-int, Novat,, Hil, Ambrst]: txt ABKL® rel vulg(and F-lat) syr copt [arm] Orig,(and int,) Epiph, Chr,. [Euthal-ms] Thdrt-ms Damasc ΤῊ] Cc Tert,. (The plur was corrd to the sing because, One Spirit inspiring all the prophets, πνευματα was not understood.) e g k 47 (Chr, Euthal-ms Damasc ].) υποτασσονταῦῖ Li. 33. 0 θεος bef ακαταστασιας. A 57 Syr eopt [Hip,]: om o F. (adda, so ABDN at end ins διδασκω (from ch iv. 17) F bo 2. 10. 39 vulg ({fuld demid hayl tol :| not am): syr-w-ast [arm-ed'] Chr,: διατασσομαι Chr-ms, Damase. person possessing the gift of διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, mentioned ch. xii. 10 in im- mediate connexion with προφητεία. Such would exercise that gift, to determine whether the spirit was of God : see ch. xii.. 3; 1 John iv. 1—3. 90.1 But if a revelation shall have been made to another (prophet) while sitting’ by,. let the first (who was: prophesying) hold his. peace (give place tothe other : but clearly, not as ejected by the second in any dis- orderly manner: probably, by being made: aware of it and ceasing his discourse): The rendering of Grot., al.,.“let him (the second) wait till the first has done speak- tng, α. ἃ., ‘let the first have left off, is | ungrammatical. See also vv. 28,. 34. 31, 32.] He shews that the 6 πρῶτος σιγάτω is no impossibility, but in: their power to put into effect. For ye have the power (the primary emphasis of the sentence is on δύνασθε, which is not merely permissive, as Εἰ. V., ‘ye may,’ but asserts the possession of the power ;—the secondary on’ καθ᾽ ἕνα) One by one all. to prophesy (i.e. you have power to bring about this result—you can be silent if you please), in order that all may learn and all may be exhorted (or, comforted) : 32.]| and (not, for: but a parallel assertion to the last, ‘ye have power, &c. and’) spirits of prophets (i.e. their own spirits, filled with the Holy Spirit: so Meyer, and rightly: not, as De Wette, the Spirit of God within each: and so ver. 12: the inspired spirit being regarded as a πνεῦμα in a peculiar sense—from God. or otherwise: See: the distinction plainly made 1 John iv. 2: ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ πνεῦμα. TOU θεοῦ. πᾶν πνεῦμα K.T.A. The-omission of the art. generalizes the assertion, making it applicable to all genuine Christian prophets) are subject to prophets (i.e. to the men whose spirits they are. But very many Commentators, e.g. Theophyl.(alt.), Calvin, Estius, and more recently Bleek and Riickert, take προφήταις to signify other prophets— τὸ ἔν σοι χάρισμα, καὶ ἣ ἐνέργεια’ τοῦ ἔν σοι πνεύματος, ὑποτάσσεται. τῷ χαρίσματι τοῦ ἑτέρου τοῦ κινηθέντος εἰς. τὸ προφη- τεύειν (Theophyl.).. But the command ὁ πρῶτος ovyétw would be superfluous, if his gift was in subjection to another). 33.] Reason of the above regula- tions, The premiss,. that the church is God’s: chureh,. is suppressed. He is the God of peace, not confusion: therefore those assemblies which are His must be peacefully and orderly conducted. And this character of God is not one depen- dent for its truth on preconceived views of Him:—we have a proof of it wherever a church of the saints has been gathered together. ‘In all the churches of the saints, God is a God of peace: let Him not among you be supposed to be a God of confusion.’ I am compelled to depart from the majority of modern crities of note, e.g. Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. 7 [and 8]), Billroth, Meyer, De Wette, and to adhere to the common arrangement of this latter clause. My reason is, that taken as beginning the next paragraph, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. XIV. 34—40. 600 34. Αἱ fad x 5] a ’ A αι Z L 4 ὁ > \ eh lL Yyuvaikes ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις 5 συγατωσαν' οὐ yap Acts Be | ’ , a a \ ref. ἊΝ τ ™ ἐχγιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ δ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς n Gen. iii. 16. ΜΥ͂Σ Ἶ ) a Σ Ε och. xi 34 πεῖ. καὶ ὁ πγόμος λέγει. 35 εἰ δέ TL μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ° ἐν p Matt. xii. 10 al. fr. Epp., ” \ γὼ ” ὃ P2 ΄ Aa ᾽ \ / Rom. x. 20 οἴκῳ TOUS ἰδίους ἄνδρας P éTTEpwTdTwaav “ αἰσχρὸν γάρ (from pe “ ς es 9 ᾽ , 36 \ ee ee a fry , oak puke ἐστι YuvaLKL λαλεῖν EV ἐκκλησίᾳ: ἢ ad ὑμῶν o * λογος A i. 1 reff. a a a A > con ’ , s— Rom.x.18 TOU 1 θεοῦ ὃ" ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ " εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους ᾿ κατήντησεν ; 51 εἴ reff. A , 5 ΕἸ Ud 5] / i u a ν w τ ἐν ee δοκεῖ προφήτης εἰναι ἢ πνευματικος, “ ἐπυγινωσκέτω reff. u= ch. iii. 18 reff, v ch. ii. 15 reff. w constr., Acts iii. 10. iv. 13. 2 Cor. i. 14. xiii. 5. Vv. 34, 35 are placed aft ver 40 in DF 93 fuld? Ambrst Sedul. 34. rec aft yuvaikes ins vuwy, with DFKL rel Syr syr-w-ob Chr, Thdrt @e Ambr, Ambrst Sedul: om ABN 17 vulg(and F-lat: vestre is written over ὑμῶν in the gr column) coptt eth arm Orig[-c,] Mcion-e, Dial, Nys, Damasc (Cypr,) Pel. rec επιτετραπται (‘the sense of the perfect, permissum est, was more familiar to the trans- cribers.’ Meyer), with K rel syrr Mcion-e, Chr, Thdrt, εἐπιτετρεπται L: txt ABDFN 17 [latt coptt arm Orig-c, Euthal-ms] Mcion-e, Damase [Ambr, Ambrst]}. (aAAa, so ABD'X [ Mcion-e, Euthal-ms ].) * ὑποτασσέσθωσαν ABN 17 Syr coptt eth Mcion-e, [Euthal-ms] Damasc: vrotacoec@a: DFKL rel latt syr arm Dial, Chr Thdrt ΤῺ] (ἔς [Ambr Ambrst ]. add rots avdpacw A. 35. εἰ τι δὲ si quid autem DF vulg Ambrst. Nys,. (A! doubtful.) θελωσιν A 78 Damase. om εστιν B [ Euthal-ms]. rec γυναιξὶν (to agree with plurals preceding), with DFKLN? rel syrr Orig[-cj, Chr- mss, Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABN! 17 vulg(and F-lat: mulieribus is written over γυναιξὶν in gr column) coptt eth arm Orig[-c,] Chr[-ed, (Euthal-ms) ] Damase Pel. rec ev exkAnow bef Aadew, with D(F)K(L) 47 syrr Orig{-c], Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABN m 17 vulg coptt eth Orig, Damase Bede.—exxAnoims ΕΓ ποῦ F-lat] L 49. 69. 106-8 D-lat syr Thdrt. 86. κατηντ. bef μονους ΕΓ not F-lat] copt. μανθανειν ΑἿΝΙ 17. 23-6. 31. 73 ᾽ 87. επιγιγνωσκετω 1) : γινωσκετω B Chr,(addg ταυτα). it is harsh beyond example, and super- fluous, as anticipating the reason about to be given οὐ yap «.7.A. Besides which, it is more in accordance with St. Paul's style, to place the main subject of a new sentence first, see 1 Tim. iii. 8, 11, 12; and we have an example of reference to general usage coming in last, in aid of other considerations, ch. xi. 16: but it seems unnatural that it should be placed first in the very forefront of a matter on which he has so much to say. 34, 35. | Regulation prohibiting women to speak publicly in the church, and its grounds. If ὡς... ἁγίων be placed at the begin- ning of this sentence, we must not, as Lachm. absurdly does, put a comma be- fore τῶν ἁγίων, which would throw the emphasis on it and disturb the sense: and which besides would then be expressed ἁγίων γυναῖκες, or even ἁγίων αἱ γυναῖκες, but certainly not τῶν ἁγίων αἱ γυναῖκες. 34.] ἀλλὰ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, scil. κελεύεται αὐταῖς. The same construction where a second verb must be supplied from the context, occurs 1 Tim. iv. 3. So Soph. (Ed. Tyr. 236, τὸν ἄνδρ᾽ ἀπαυδῶ TOUTOV ..... μήτ᾽ eisdéxerOat μήτε mpos- φωνεῖν τινα, ὠθεῖν δ᾽ am οἴκων πάντας: Lucian, χάρων ἢ ἐπισκοποῦντες, line 49 from beg.,—oé δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν κωλύσει ἐνερ- γεῖν τὰ τοῦ θανάτου ἔργα, καὶ τὴν Πλού- τωνος ἀρχὴν ζημιοῦν. See other examples in Kiihner, ὃ 852 xk. ὁ νόμος — ref. Their speaking in public would be of itself an act of independence ; of teach- ing the assembly, and among others their own husbands. 35.| ‘This pro- hibits another kindred irregularity—their asking questions publicly. They might say in answer to the former ovydétwoar, ‘But if we do not understand any thing, are we not to ask?’ The stress is on μαθεῖν. ἰδίους, confining them to their own husbands, to the exclusion of other men. αἰσχρόν] See ref.: indecent, bringing deserved reproach. 86—40.| GENERAL CONCLU- ston: the unseemliness and absurdity of their pretending to originate customs un- known to other churches, as if the word of God first went forth from them: and the enforcement of his apostolic authority. Then, a summary in a few words of the purport of what he has said on the spiritual gifts, and a repetition, in another form, of the fundamental precept, ver. 26. 86.| I cannot agree with Meyer in refer- ring this only to the regulation concerning women which has preceded. It rather seems to refer to all the points of church custom which he has been noticing, and to be inseparably connected with what follows,—the recognition of Ais apostolic ABDFK δὺς defgh klmo 17. 47 | | VEL: ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 601 A ΄ A 0 ͵ \ , , ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν, “ ὅτι κυρίου ἐστὶν [évrory]* 38 εἰ δέ τις x=? Petit. | x ἀγνοεῖ, * a f 39 Y Gf ; , 2 δ ass.,2 Cor. ie es vs τὐκέης τ πο ἀδελφοί [μου], “ ξηλοῦτε init Ῥκωλυε- τὸ * προφητεύειν, καὶ TO” λαλεῖν μὴ ° κωλύετε ὃ ἐν ἢ γλώσ- ἢ τα. Gace 7 ; τ ; $ Ἢ 2 = ver. 1. σαις, 49 πάντα δὲ ἃ εὐσχημόνως Kai κατὰ " τάξιν ' γινέσθω. 3.“ αἰ 4. XV. 1ε Ῥνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ | rij c = Matt. xix Exod. xxxvi. 6. : _ d Rom. xiii. 13. 1 Thess. iy. 12 only t. (-μων, e Lukei. 8. Col. ii.5. Heb. ν. 6,10 & vi. 20 (from Ps. cix. 4), vii. 11, f = ver. 26. ch. xvi. 14. g ch. xii. 3 14. Luke xxiii. 2 al. ch. xii. 24.) ἄς. only. L.P.H. Job xxxviii. 12. reff. 2 Cor. viii. 1. rec ins tov bef xupiov, with Thl: om ABDFKLN rel Orig, Chr, Thdrt Damasc Ce. for κυριου, θευυ A copt Origs. rec εἰσιν ἐντολαι, with D?-3[-gr] KL rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr basm Chr Thdrt Ambrst-ms: evroAa: εἰσιν m: ἐντολή εστιν XR}: ἐστιν, omg evtoAn, D'(and lat) F[-gr(and G-lat)] Orig,[-c,-](int,) Hil, Ambrst-ed: εστιν evtoAn ABN? 17 copt ath Aug,. 38. for αγνυειτω, ayvoerra Ὠϊ(-τε) F(nyy-) δὲ! 17 Orig¢[-c,(appy): simly coptt (engelbr)] and perhaps A!(w is written secunda manu, the original letter being erased): zgnoratur D-lat: ignorabitur vulg [F-lat] G-lat Orig-int, [Ambr, Ambrst]: non cog- noscetur Hil,: txt A?B D?-3[-gr] KILN? rel syrr copt[-wilk] eth arm Origj -c}, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase Thl Ee. (There appears no reason why the indic should have been altered to the imperat ; but the form of exprn in ch viii. 2, 3 may perhaps have occasioned an alteration of the imperat into the indic, esp if, as Meyer supposes, in writing ayvoeitw wste, one w had dropped out, and left the last letter of αγνοειτ. to be supplied.) 39. aft αδελφοι ins μου AB! D2-3[-gr] δὲ ὁ g m o syrr copt Chr, Thdrt Damasc [nostri eth]: om B2(sic: see table) D! FKL rel latt basm arm Ambrst Pel. om Ist το F. om 2nd το B 48. rec γλωσσαις bef un κωλνετε, with DFKL rel latt syrr eth arm Chr, Thdrt Ambrst: txt ΑΒΡΝ m 17 [Euthal-ms] Damasc.—rec om ev (Aaa. va. being the more usual exprn 7), with A D3[-gr] KL[P]& rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr [arm Euthal-ms] Chr Thdrt Ambrst: ins B D!(and lat) F[-gr] G-lat coptt. 40. rec om δε (because there appeared to be no contrast ?), with KL rel basm [ Bas, | Orig-int, Ambr,: ins ABDFPN 17 a πὶ vulg Syr copt arm Chr, [Euthal-ms Cyr, ] Thdrt Damase Pel Bede. Cuap. XV. 1. (aft γνωριζω δὲ! has written a, but erased it.) orders, as those of God. 37.] πνευ- ματικός, one spiritually endowed: not quite as in ch. ii. 15. ἃ γράφω] the things which I am writing, viz. ‘ these regulations which I am now mak- ing.’ κυρίου, emphatic: the Lord’s (commandment): carrying His authority. No more direct assertion of inspiration can be uttered than this. ‘ Paul stamps here the seal of apostolic authority: and on that seal is necessarily Christ.” Meyer. 38. dyvoeitw| implying both the hopelessness of reclaiming such an one, and the little concern which his op- position gave the Apostle. The other reading, ἀγνοεῖται, gives a passable sense —‘he is ignored,’ scil. by God: cf. ch. vill. 2,°3; xiii. 12; Gal. iv. 9. 39.] ζηλοῦτε and μὴ κωλύετε express the different estimations in which he held the two gifts. 40. δέ, only pro- vided, that.... κατὰ τάξιν i. e. in right time, and due proportion.— Meyer compares Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 5, of the Essenes : οὔτε κραυγή ποτε τὸν οἶκον οὔτε θόρυβος μολύνει, τὰς δὲ λαλιὰς ἐν τάξει παραχωροῦσιν ἀλλήλοις. See Stanley, edn. 2, pp. 298 f. Cuap. XV.] Or THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD; WHICH SOME IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH DENIED. For the enquiry, WHO they were that denied the Resurrection, see note on ver. 12. 1—11.] The Apostle lays the founda- tion of his intended polemical argument in the historical fact of the RESURREC- TION OF CuRIST. But he does not alto- gether assume this fact. He deals with its evidence, in relating minutely the various appearances of the Lord after His Resur- rection, to others, and to himself. Then, in ver. 12, the proclamation of Christ’s Resurrection asthe great fact attending the preaching of the gospel, is set against the denial of the Resurrection by some of them, and it is subsequently shewn that the two hang together, so that they who denied the one must be prepared to deny the other ; and the consequences of this latter denial are pointed out. But it by no means follows, as De W. (in part) and Meyer have assumed, that the impugners were not prepared to deny the Resurrection of Christ. The Apostle writes not only for them, but for the rest of the Corinthian believers, shewing them the historical cer- 602 ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOT® A. a. A - , . 4 e h constr. ace. & ἢ εὐηγγγελέσάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ ἱπαρελάβετε, Jév ᾧ καὶ dat., Luke 1. ] 10. 9 k , 7, , > , Ae iéotyxate, 3 dv οὗ καὶ * σώξεσθε, tive λόγῳ εὐηγγελισά- ii. 18) con > , 9 \ > \ δ" νς ῶ > , 2 Cor. zi. τ μὴν ὑμῖν εἰ ' κατέχετε, ™ ἐκτὸς MEL μὴ " εἰκῆ ° ἐπιστεύσατε. i = ch. xi. 2, a ν δον ΘΑ]. 1.9, 12 8 Ρ gapédwxa γὰρ ὑμῖν 4 ἐν 4 πρώτοις ὃ καὶ ἱπαρέλαβον, 16) — John j i = viii. 44. Rom. v. 2. ἊΝ Cor. i. 24.) Col. iv. 15. k pres., Acts ii. 47. ch. 1. 18. 2 Cox. ii, 15. i Pet. iii. 21, iv. 18. Isa. xlv. cae xi. 2 reff. m ch, xiv.5. 1 Tim, v. 19 only. n Rom, xiii. 4 reff. o — Acts xix. Rom. xiii. 11. ch. iii. 5. Eph, i. 13. p=ch. xi. 2 reff. q here only. see note, Gen. xxxiii. 2. arr D Orig-c. for εστηκατε, στηκετεῖ statis} D'¥ latt copt Ambrst. 2. aft Aoyw ins και D!(and lat) ; quod et sermone Ambrst. for εἰ κατέχετε, οφειλετε κατεχειν D}(and lat) ΕἸ ποῦ F-Jlat lux Ambrst. ’ tainty, and vital importance of Christ’s thie gospel a fable; see ver. 14, of which Resurrection, and its inseparable connexion — this is an anticipation: —unless (perchance) with the doctrine which they were now ye believed (not as Εἰ. V. ‘ have. believed,’ tempted to deny. 1, 2.] δέ transi- » which confuses the idea: it is, ‘ became tional. γνωρίζω, not, as most Com- believers,’ see reff.) in vain (εἰς κενόν, as mentators, aft. (Ee., οἷον ὑπομιμνήσκω, ver. 14). So Chrys., who remarks: νῦν nor as Riick., ‘I direct your attention to’ μὲν ὑπεσταλμένως αὐτό φησι, προϊὼν δὲ (both which meanings are inadmissible, καὶ διαθερμαινόμενοΞ" γυμνῇ λοιπὸν τῇ from the usage of the word: see reff.),— κεφαλῇ βοᾷ καὶ λέγει Εἰ δὲ χριστὸς οὐκ but as E. V. Ideclare: i. 6. ‘declare ἐγήγερται, κιτ.λ., ver. 14. Hom. xxxviii. anew ? not without some intimation of p. 352. This explanation of the words “surprise and reproach to them. τὸ appears to me the only tenable one. evayy.] the (whole) Gospel: not merely Meyer, and in the main De W., under- the Death and Resurrection of Christ, stand them of a vain and dead fuith, which were ἐν πρώτοις parts of it; the which the Apostle will not suppose them reproach still continues; q.d.‘Iamcon- tohave. But surely if the previously ex- strained to begin again, and declare to you pressed condition of κατέχετε were ful- the whole gospel which I preached to _ filled, their faith could not be vain or dead ; you.’ ὃ καὶ wap.| The thrice re- and again the aovist is against this inter- peated καί indicates a climax :—which ye pretation: unless ye became believers in also received (see especially ref. John), in vain, not, ‘unless your faith has been a which moreover ye stand, by means of vain one.’ A still further reason is, the which ye are even being saved (in the parallelism of εἰκῆ ἐπιστεύσατε here and course of salvation). τίνι λόγ. if οὕτως ἐπιστεύσατε, ver. 11: leading to the ye hold fast, with what discourse (not, inference that εἰκῆ here relates, not tothe as Moulton supposes me to interpret subjective insufficiency of their faith, but (in his Winer, Gr. Gr. p. 211, note 2,) to the (hypothetical) objective nullity of = the discourse with which) I preached that on which their faith was founded. to you: the clause tiv: Ady. being pre- (Kc., Theophyl., Theodoret, Luther, Calv. ty fixed for emphasis’ sake. λόγος, of the Estius, and De W. connect ἐκτὸς εἰ μή (see import, not the grounds of his preaching : above) as a second conditional clause to εἰ for of this he reminds them below, not of κατέχετε, supplying between, κατέχετε δὲ the arguments. Some Commentators take πάντως (Theophyl.) : but this is arbitrary τίνι λόγῳ K.T.A, aS a mere epexegesis of and unnatural. \ 3—11.] A detail of εὐαγγέλιον, ---“ the gospel... ., with what the great facts preached to them, centering discourse I preached to you,’ as οἷδά ce, in THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. tis el. But as Meyer has remarked, in 8. ἐν πρώτοις ] in primis, with relation not that case,—(1) σώζεσθε and εἰ κατέχετε to order of time (as Chrys.: ἐξ &pxiis), being altogether severed from one another, but to importance (as Theophyl.: οἱονεὶ γὰρ εἰ κατέχετε becomes the conditional clause θεμέλιός ἐστι πάσης τῆς πίστεως). 80 to γνωρίζω ὑμῖν, with which it has πὸ Plato, Rep. vii, 6, p. 522: τοῦτο τὸ κοινὸν logical connexion: (2) εἰ κατέχετε would 8 nal νας δ πρώτοις ἀνάγκη be inconsistent with ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε, ἀμυθάνέιν. ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον] viz. which would thus be an absolute assertion: (see ch. xi. 23 and note) from the Lord (3) the words ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ ἐπιστ. would himself, by special revelation. Before his have to be referred as a second conditional conversion he may have known the bare ele ise to εἰ κατέχετε (see below). * fact of the death of Jesus, but the na- ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ emtor.| The only chance, ture and reason of that Death he had to if you hold fast what I have taught you, of learn from revelation :—the Resurrection your missing salvation, is the hardly sup- he regarded as a fable,—but revelation in- posable one, that your faith is vatm,and formed him of its reality, and its accord- 2—6. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 603 \ > ΄ “ rn “ ὅτι χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν * ὑπὲρ τῶν * ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν " κατὰ τ Hed. v.1. vii x \ t / 4. Ay ἐν u ,’ / vo. Vv > / ry OM - , τὰς ᾿ γραφάς, 4 καὶ ὅτι ἃ ἐτάφη, Kai ὅτι " ἐγήγερται TH ἡμέρᾳ a \ \ ΄ ¢ lal τῇ τρίτῃ ἣ κατὰ τὰς " γραφάς, ὅ καὶ ὅτι * ὠφθη Κηφᾷ, εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα. Xvi. 22. xxvi. 19. Acts ii. 29. v. 6,9, 10 only. w Psa. xv. 10. Gen. xxiii. 4. Isa. liii. 9, 10. Ezek. xlv. 22. s Psa. xxi. 16. Isa. 111}, 5. Dan. ix. 24. ZECH. &iii. 7. la 6 ἔπειτα * ὥφθη ¥ ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελ.- t Plur., Aets φοῖς * ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν 5 οἱ ὃ πλείονες ὃ μένουσιν ° ἕως “ ἄρτι, ν — Matt. χ. 8. xiv. 2. xvi. 21 8]. Isa. HosEa vi. 2. Jon. i. 17 (ii. 1). see Matt. xii. 40. x Acts ii. 3 reff. 1 Tim. iii. 16. in this ref., = ἐφάνη or ἐφανερώθη. (Mk. xvi. 9—20) John. See Stanley. = Mark xiv. 5 only. Exod. xxx. 14 al. z = here (Rom. vi. 10. xxi. 22,23. Phil. i. 26. 4. rec rn Tpit ny. (see Matt xvi. 213 xvii. 23. elsw. of place or authority. Heb. vii. 27. ix, 12. x. 10) only +. Ὁ ch, iv. 13 reff. See Winer, edn. 6, $ 37. 5. ach. ix. 19 reff. b = John Here tn np. Tn Tp. ἐδ solemn and emphatic), with FKLP rel vulg Syr basm goth Mcion-e, Dial, Eus, [Cyr-jer,) Chr, Thdrt [Archel, Damasc] Iren-int, Tert,: txt ABDX m 17 syr copt Cyr-jer, Cyr[-p; Euthal-ms] Hil). 5. emeita AN m 17 Eus, Cyr-jer, Chr, [Euthal-ms Hesych,]: καὶ μετα ταῦτα DIF am goth [(Syr arm) ]. for δωδεκα, evdexa DIF nonnulli-codices-in-Aug latt syr- mg goth arm-usce {Eus, ] Archel,; Damase Phot [Ambrst] Jer. 6. rec πλείους, with KLP rel Eus, Chr, Thdrt Damase: txt ABDFX k m 17 Orig, Ens, Cyr[(varies) Euthal-ms]. ance with prophecy. On the following clauses, ‘the earliest known specimen of what may be termed the creed of the early Church,’ see Stanley’s notes, and [his } dis- sertation at the end of the section. ὑπὲρ τ. ap. 7p. ] ON BEHALF OF OUR SINS: viz. to atone for them. Meyer makes the important remark, that this use of ὑπέρ with τῶν Gpaptidv ju. shews, that when Paul uses it in speaking of Christ’s suffer- ings with ἡμῶν only, he does not mean by it ‘loco nostri.’ He also quotes from Butt- mann (Index to Meidias, p. 188), on the distinction between ὑπέρ and περί: “id unum interest, quod περί usu frequentis- simo teritur, multo rarius usurpatur ὑπέρ, quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. prmp. de et super locum obtinet.” It may be noticed, that in 3 Kings xvi. 19, where it is said that Zimri ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτοῦ ὧν ἐποίησεν, it is for his own sins, as their punishment, that he died. So that ὑπέρ may bear the meaning that Christ’s death was the punishment of the sins of that our nature which he took upon Him. But its undoubtedly inclusive vicarious import in other passages where ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν and the like occur, seems to rule it to have that sense here also. κατὰ τὰς yp.|] This applies to Christ’s . Death, Burial, and Resurrection on the third day: see reff. 4. ἐγήγερται] the perfect marks the continuation of the state thus begun, or of its consequences : so Herod. vii. 8, ἀλλ᾽ 6 μὲν τετελεύτηκε, καὶ οὐκ ἐξεγένετό of τιμωρήσασθαι: see Kiihner, ὃ 441. 6. 5.] That the fol- lowing appearances are related in chrono- logical order, is evident from the use of the definite adverbs of sequence, εἶτα, ἔπειτα, ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων. See examples in Wetstein. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. der vier Evv. pp. 420 f., attempts to disprove this, but certainly does not succeed in get- ting over ἔσχατον πάντων, ver. 8. ὥφθη Kydd] See Luke xxiv. 34. τοῖς δώδεκα) used here popularly, as decemviri, and other like expressions, al- though the number was not full. The occasion referred to seems to be that in John xx. 19 ff. ; Luke xxiv. 36 ff. Clearly we must not with Chrys., suppose Mat- thias to be included as possibly having seen Him after His ascension: for the appearance is evidently one and the same. 6. |} He drops the construction with ὅτι, dependent on παρέδωκα, and pro- ceeds in a direct narration. But evidently the sense of the former construction con- tinues: he is relating what he had re- ceived and preached to them. ἐπάνω mevrax. a8. épam.| From Matt. xxviii. 17, it appears (see note there) that others besides the eleven witnessed the appearance on the mountain in Galilee. But we cannot say that it is the appearance here referred to :—nor indeed is it likely that so many as 500 believers in Jesus would have been gathered together in Gali- lee: both from its position in the list, and from the number who witnessed it, this appearance would seem rather to have taken place at Jerusalem, and before the dispersion of the multitudes who had as- sembled at the passover: for we find that the church of Jerusalem itself (Acts i. 15) subsequently contained only 120 persons. ἐφάπαξ] not here in its commoner meaning of ‘once for all, but at once, at one and the same time; as Theodoret, ov καθ᾽ ἕνα, GAA” ὁμοῦ πᾶσιν. μένουσιν] survive; see reff. The circum- stance of most of them remaining alive is mentioned apparently by way of strength- d ch. vii. 39 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. XV. τινὲς δὲ [καὶ] *éxoupnOnoav’ 7 ἔπειτα * ὥφθη ᾿Ιακώβῳ, reff. , a ͵ a \ ΄ eadvhere | ἔπειτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν. 8." ἔσχατον δὲ ἱ πάντων only. : ), “..ὁ \ A / /, » e xan 3. 8 ὡςπερεὶ τῷ »E€xTpwuate * wWhOn κἀμοί. 95 ἐγὼ γάρ εἶμι O {neut., see ra Mark xii. 28, 9 , A > ’ meer. > 5 ate \ a and note. ἐλάχιστος τῶν ATTOTTOAWY" OS οὐκ εἰμι * LKAVOS καλεῖσθαι g here only τ. 5 ἦ - 5 = x Jos. Antti ἀπόστολος, διότι JédiwEa τὴν " ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ * θεοῦ" Sic. iii. 39. 10 ΄ Se a ee ae > Pe ee | , > rus Cy pes a. κ᾿ h here only. χάριτι δὲ θεοῦ εἰμὶ 6 εἰμι, καὶ ἡ ' χάρις αὐτοῦ ἡ ' εἰς ἐμὲ Eccles. vi. 3 only. i = Matt. iii, 11, 2Cor. iii. 5. Exod. iv. 10. constr., 2 Tim. ii. 2. j = Matt. v.10, ll al. fr. Ps. vii. 1. 2 Macc. vy. 8. k ch. i. 2 reff. 11 Pet.i..10. aft δὲ ins εξ avtwy K. exo:) Al(perbaps) BD!FR? latt syr coptt goth arm [Ambrst Aug, }: om και (not perceiving its force or confusion from € kar ins A? D3[-gr] KLPN? rel (Syr) eth Orig, Archel, Eus, Chr [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc. ἡ. for Ist επειτα, εἰτα 1) copt [Cyr,]: txt ABFKLPR 17 rel Orig, [ Eus, Euthal-ms] Cyr-jer, Chr Damasc. rec (for 2nd επειτα) evra, with BDLPR3 rel Chr, Thdrt ς, txt AFKN! ace g 17 Orig, Eus, [Cyr, Euthal-ms] Damase. 8. wsmep (for -περει) D! Eus,. om Tw F lect-19 sah. και εμοι F. 10. om 2nd ἡ D!F, gratia ejus in me latt Ἰαῦ- ening the evidence : q. d. “ and can attest it, if required :”’—hardly for the reason suggested by Stanley, that the dead among them would have been worse off even than others, if there were no resurrection, having been “ tantalised by the glimpse of another world in the vision of their risen Lord.” tv’ 7. Ἰακώβῳ] Probably, from no distinguishing epithet being added, the celebrated James, the brother of the Lord: see Gal. i. 19. So Chrys.: ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, τῷ ἀδελφῷ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ, p. 895. See notes on ch. ix. 5, Matt. xiii. 55, and the Prolegg. to the Epistle of James. On Wieseler’s view that this is the appearance on the road to Emmaus, see note on Luke xxiv. 13. This appearance cannot how- ever be identical with that traditional one quoted by Jerome (from the Gospel ac- cording to the Hebrews), Catal. Script. Eccles. ii. vol. ii. p. 831 f.: “ Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentem a mortuis.” This would imply that the appearance was very soon after the Resurrection, and be- fore any of those to large collections of be- lievers, in which James would naturally be present. ἀποστ. πᾶσιν] This is decisive for the much wider use of the term ἀπόστολος than as applying to the Twelve only: and a strong presumption that James, just mentioned, and evidently here and Gal. i. 19, included among the ἀπό- στολοι, was not one of the Twelve. Chrys. (ubi supra) extends the term to the Seventy of Luke x. and others: ἦσαν yap καὶ ἄλλοι ἀπόστολοι, ws οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα. 8.) But last of all (not masc., as Meyer, who refers it to τῶν ἀποστόλων, ---ἰοῦ others than the Apostles have already been mentioned,—but neut., as in ref. and in the expression πάντων μάλιστα (Plato, Protag. p. 380)), as to the abortively born (τῴ pointing out the Apostles as a family, and himself as the abortion among them,—the one whose relation to the rest in point of worthiness, was as that of the immature and deformed child to the rest of the family. That this is the meaning is evident from ver. 9, which drops the figure. On ἔκτρωμα, see examples in Wetstein. It is not, as τινες in Theophyl., τὸ ὕστερον γέννημα, ‘a weakling child of old age.’ The grammarians find fault with the term, and prefer ἄμβλωμα or ἐξάμβλωμα: but it occurs in Aristotle, de generatione ani- malium, iv. 5,—ov δύναται τελειοῦν, ἀλλὰ Kunwar ἐκπίπτει παραπλήσια τοῖς κα- λουμένοις ἐκτρώμασιν. The suggestion of Valcknaer, al., that τῷ is τῳ for τινι, is equally inconsistent with usage and the sense of the passage), He appeared to me also: viz. on the road to Damascus. This, and this only, can here be meant; as he is speaking, not ofa succession of visions, but of some one definite apparition. 9, 10.] Digressive, explanatory of ἐκτρώ- ματι. 9. ἐγώ] The stress is on ἐγώ, ‘J, and no other,’ ὅς | ‘ut qui: assigns the reason. ἱκανός | see reff. καλεῖσθαι] ‘to bear the honourable name of an Apostle.’ 10. χάρ. δὲ θεοῦ] “With the humiliating conviction of his own unworthiness is united the conscious- ness of that higher Power which worked on and in him,—and this introduces his chas- . tened self-consciousness of the extent and success of his apostolic labours.” De Wette. The position of χάριτι δὲ θεοῦ, and the repetition of 7 χάρις αὐτοῦ afterwards, shew the emphatic prominence which he assigns to the divine Grace. ὅ εἰμι] viz. in my office and its results. The church has admirably connected this passage, as Epistle for the 11th Sunday after Trinity, with that other speech of a Pharisee, Luke xviii. 11,—é θεός, εὐχαριστῶ σοι ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὥ5- ABDFK LPN ab cdefg ἢ ΚΙ πὶ ο 17. 4 7—12. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 605 , , nr , Ξ οὐ τ κενὴ ἐγενήθη, ἀλλὰ " περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων m= Actsiv.25 from Ps. ii. ἈΝ : 7 ᾿ a \ Η Ξ οἐκοπίασα, οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ, ἀλλὰ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ Ῥσὺν 1}..15,88. f 4 1 58. ii. ἐ ol 114 εἴτε οὖν ἐ ν) VEX Pty ef r / Deut. xxxii. μοι. yo “εἴτε ἐκείνοι, οὕτως * κηρύσσομεν, ee Wit 38. Heb. vi. 17. vii. 15. \ Ὁ 5 δ , 12 > be t ‘ t , ὡς 3 καὺν οὕτως “επιστευσατε. ευ O€ χρίστος Κηρυσσέται εκ u a er uv τ w a ! ? cae “ ο Matt. vi. 28. νεκρων OTt EYNYVEPT AL, TTWS λέγουσιν εν υμιν τινες OTL Rete xx. 35. - XVI. '6; 12. Phil. ii. 16: Ps. cxxvi. 1. p Acts xiv. 4. q ch, xiii. 8 reff. μι ΤΕ ΒΟΙΣ Matt. iii. 1, and passim. Exod. xxxii. 5. s = ver. 2 reff. t see Acts viii. 5 reff. u Matt. xvii. 9. (Ἴγ. ἀπὸ τ. v., Matt. xiv. 2 al. not in Mk., who has ex ν, ἀναστ., vi. 14.) Luke ix.7. John ii. 22. xii. 1,9, 17. xxi. 14. Acts iii. 15 al2. Paul, passim. Heb. xi. 19. 1 Pet. i. 21. Vv = ver. 4 al. fr. w = Rom. vi. 2. Gal. ii. 14. iv. 9. for ov κενὴ εγενηθη, πτωχὴ οὐκ εγενηθη 1)} : πτωχή ov γεγονεν F: pauper(a) non fuit 1)-ἰαὺ G-lat [Ambrst] (not Jeraic Aug,: egena [Ambr,: simly goth]). om avtev D!-gr L!: παντων bef avtwy a. aravtwy (but a erased) δὲ. (αλλα, so ΑΒΌΙΝ 17.) rec ins ἡ bef σὺν (see note), with A D-corr(? οἵ 3?)[-gr] KLPN? rel sah eth arm [ Bas, Ps-]Ath Chr, Cyr[-p, Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damase, Thl (Ke Orig-int, Jerjaic): om BD!FN? latt goth Orig(gr and int,) [Ambrst]. 11, for ουν, δὲ autem D'F goth Iren-int,: entm vulg Tert,. πιστευσατε X}. 12. Ἔτες OTL ἐκ νεκρῶν, with AB D2[-gr] KLPN rel Iven(gr and int) Chr, Thdrt [Cyr, Euthal-ms Damase Tert, Ambrst: quod resurrexit a mortuis] vulg(and F-lat): ex νεκρων or: D1:3(and lat) F[-gr] G-lat Orig,. rec τινες bef ev υμιν, with DFKL rel goth arm Epiph, Chr, Thdrt Ambrst Promiss,: quidam dicunt in vobis Jatt [coptt] Tert,: txt ABPN a 17 syrr Orig,([-c, ]-int,) Chr, [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms] Damase. περ of λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων : see note there. ἡ els ἐμέ] which was (manifested) towards me: see ref. and Rom. viii. 18. ἀλλά opposed to κενὴ ey.,—‘ by means of God’s grace’ being understood after ἀλλά, as afterwards explained. περισσότε- pov] adverbial, as in reff.: or perhaps neut. accus. governed by ἐκοπίασα. αὐτῶν πάντων) either, ‘than any of them, or ‘than they all, scil. together. Meyer prefers the latter, on account of τοῖς am. πᾶσιν, ver. 7. But it seems hardly necessary, and introduces an element of apparent exaggeration. ἐκοπίασα] Spoken of his apostolic work, in all its branches ; see reff., especially Phil. οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ] explanatory, to avoid misap- prehension : it had been implied (see above) in the ἀλλά :--ποῦ I, however, but the Grace of God with me (see var. readd.) : 5011. ἐκοπίασεν. x.7.A. That is,—the Grace of God worked with him in so over- whelming a measure, compared to his own working, that it was no longer the work of himself but of divine Grace. Augus- tine, de Grat. et Lib. Arb. § 5 (12), vol. x. p. 889, hardly expresses this: “Non ego autem, i.e. non solus, sed gratia Dei mecum: ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola, nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo :”” — for he overlooks the entire preponderance of Grace, which Paul asserts, even to the exclusion of his own action in the matter. The right view of this preponderance of Grace prevents the misunderstanding of the words which has led to the insertion ot the article, 7 σὺν ἐμοί, whereby Grace becomes absolutely the sole agent, which is contrary to fact. On the coagency of the human will with divine Grace, but in subordination, see Matt. x. 20; 2 Cor. v. 20; vi. 1, and ch. iii. 9, note. thal He resumes the subject after the digression respecting himself :—it matters not whe- ther it were I or they (the other Apostles) —SUCH is the purport of our preaching— SUCH was your belief:—oitws, after this manner, viz. that Christ died, was buried, and rose again, as vv. 3, 4. 12—19.] On the fact of Christ’s Resur- rection, announced in his preaching, and confessed in their belief, he grounds (nega- tively) the truth of the general Resurrec- tion :—If the latter be not to happen, neither has the former happened :—and he urges the results of such a disproof of Christ’s Resurrection. 12.] intro- duces the argument for the resurrection, by referring to its denial among a portion of the Corinthian church. δέ belongs to the whole question, and’ is opposed to οὕτως Knp. and ovr. émor. of the fore- going verse. The position of χριστός before the verb gives it the leading emphasis, as an example of that which is deuied by some among you: But if CuRIstT is preached [not subjunctive, be preached: he is arguing from a matter of fact, not from a mere hypothesis | that He is risen from the dead (if an instance of such resurrection is a fact announced in our preaching), how say some among you (how comes it to pass that some say) that a resurrection of the dead does not exist (οὐκ ἔστ. as ver. 13)? If the species be conceded, how is it that some among you deny the genus ? tives | It is an in- teresting question, WHO these τινες were; and one which can only be answered by the indications which the argument in G06 ᾽ ; Ξ χα Μαῖ χα. Σαναστασις * 41 only in gospp. Acts xvii. 32 al4. Paul, Rom. i. 4. here ἄς. 4 times only. Heb. vi. 2. see Acts iv. 2 reff, x. 41 reff. b Rom, xvi. 25 reff. 19. -pta, Matt. xv. 19.) y ver. 4. c = ch. iv. 2 reff. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. al » ” »>OX\ \ 3 / x 14 2 \ κρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ χριστὸς "ἡ ἐγήγερται" 13 εἰ δὲ χριστὸς ‘ Ν lal h k οὐκ ἡ ἐγήγερται, *Kevov *apa καὶ TO ἢ κήρυγμα ἡμῶν, οἷ᾽ 2 κενὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν" 158 ὁ εὑρισκόμεθα δὲ καὶ ἃ ψευδο- z ver. 10. XV. Ἀ a2Cor. v.15. Gal. iii. 29, see Rom. Vii. 3, 25. d Matt. xxvi. 60 only +. see Acts vi. 13. (-ρεῖν, Mark x. 13. om εἰ δε to ἐστιν (homeotel) [ἘΠ €'(ins N-corr!) a ἃ 17 [Cyr,].—for εἰ, eav F. 14. om εἰ to eyny. (homeotel) D}{ and lat]. rec om Ist ka: (as superfluous), with BLN? rel [vulg F-lat syrr coptt ath arm] Ps-Ign, Constt Epiph, Cyr-jer, Chr, [Cyr-p,] Thdrt Damase Jac-nisib, [Iren-int, Tert, Ambrst] : ins AD F{-gr] KPR' ἃ (e) [31 m 17. 47 G-lat basm goth Dial, [Euthal-ms | (@c. (D-lat [Tren-int] lat-ff express neither καὶ nor apa.) rec aft κενὴ ins δε, with D3[-gr] KL [47(sic)] rel (am) syr Ps-Ign, Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] @e: om ABD!FPN a! m 17 latt [Syr goth wth arm] coptt Cyr-jer, Dial, [Cyr, Euthal-ms] Damasc [Iren-int, Tert, Ambrst]. ἡμῶν BD! [17] 672. 73. 91. 106 sah goth Ps-Ign-2-mss Dial, Cyr-jer [Cyr-p,] Ze Ruf, Arnob Bede. 15. om καὶ D! goth arm Tert,. this chapter furnishes. Sadducees? If so, the Apostle would hardly have begun his argument with the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. And yet we must remember that he is arguing not with the deniers, but with those who being as yet sound, were liable to be misled by them. But the opposition between Sad- duceism and Christianity was so complete, that we have little reason to think that any leaven of the Sadducees ever found its way into the church. (2) Were they Enpi- eureans ἡ Probably not, for two reasons: (a) the Epicurean maxim, “ Let us eat and drink,” &c., is represented as a legitimate eonsequence of adopting their denial of the resurrection, not as an accompaniment of, much less as the ground of it: and (8) had the Epicurean element entered to any extent into the Corinthian chureh, we certainly should have had more notice of its exceedingly antichristian tenets. It is possible that the deniers may have been, or been in danger of being, cor- vupted by mixture with Epicureans avith- out, from the warning of ver. 33. (3) Were they Jews? If not Sadducees, hardly Jews at all, or Judaizers : a strong tenet of Pharisaism was this very one of the Resurrection, see Acts xxiii. 6: and we know of no tendency of Essenism which should produce sueh a denial. (4) They must then have been Gentile believers, inheriting the unwillingness of the Greek mind to receive that of which a full account could not be given, see vv. 35, 36: and probably of a philosophical and cavilling tnrn. Meyer argues, from the antimate- rialistic turn of the Apostle’s counter-argu- ments, vv. 35 ff.,—that the objections were antimaterialistic also: De W. infers the very opposite, which certainly seems to me more probable. No trace whatever is found in the argument of an allegorizing cuaracter in the opponents, as was that of (1) Were they Hymenezus and Philetus, who maintained that the resurrection was past already, 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18,—as Olsh. after Grot. sup- poses. Whether the Apostle regarded the resurrection of the body as inseparably bound up with a future existence of the soul, does not very clearly appear in this chapter. From the use of the word ἀπ- ὦλοντο, ver. 18, which must refer, not to aunihilation, but to perdition, it would seem that he admitted an independent ex- istence of the soul ; as also from Phil. i. 23. But from ver. 32, εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, φάγωμεν κ. πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνή- σκομεν, it would seem that the Apostle re- garded the denial of the resurrection as in- volving that of the future state and judg- ment. On the question, to which of the (supposed) Corinthian parties the oppo- nents belonged, I have nothing to say, not. recognizing the divisions into the Pauline, Apollonian, Petrine, and Christine parties as having any historical foundation; see note on ch. i. 12. 13.] δέ is the but argumentandi, frequent in mathematical demonstrations. Gv. VEK. οὐκ ἔστιν] the words (ovx) of the deniers. οὐδ χριστ. ἐγήγερται] This inference depends, us Grot. observes, on the maxim, “ Sublato genere tollitur et species ;” the Resurrec- tion of Christ being an instance of the yule, that dead men rise; inasmuch as He is man. This is enlarged on, vv. 20—22. 14.) δέ, again introducing a new inference. οὐκ ἐγ. Again repeating and ἀβίησ as matter of fact (ov«) the inference of the last verse; 4. ἃ. εἰ δὲ xp. οὐκ-ἐγήγερται. κενόν) idle, ‘empty,’ ‘without result: placed first for emphasis. ἄρα] then: ‘rebus ita comparatis’ (Meyer). καί) also, q.d. “If Christ’s Resurrec- tion be gone, then also our faith is gone.” Without the copula δέ, the clause is mnch more forcible :—-idle also is our preach- 2 ω > ΝΜ 13 2 δὲ x ? U : x VEKPWV OUK ἐστιν >; ““εἰ OF ~ αναστασις ~ VE- ABDFK LPxRab edefg kl m - 7 ; Ι 13—19. μάρτυρες τοῦ “θεοῦ, ὅτι ΠΡΟΣ ‘KOPINOIOTS A. “ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν 607 fxata τοῦ Oeove = John i. 7,6, xxiii. 11 al. “ ‘ U ἃ ὅτι " ἤγειρεν τὸν χριστόν, ὃν οὐκ Y ἤγειρεν ὅ εἴπερ ἄρα “here only. νεκροὶ οὐκ Υ᾽ ἐγείρονται. \ / Tat, οὐδὲ χριστὸς Y-éynyepTac’ ἡ ἐγήγερται, ἱἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν" 18 ἄρα καὶ οἱ * κοιμηθέντες 19 εἰ ἐν τῇ " ζωῇ ταύτῃ » ,ὔ ™ ἀπτώλοντο. ‘ , ’ ’ὔ 7 κότες 4 ἐσμὲν μόνον, * ἐλεεινότερον πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐσμέν. 9 h ch, iii. 20 reff. iv. 16. Rev. xiv. 13. iii. 10, from Ps. xxxiii. 12. 45. 2Cor. i. 10. iii. 17 only +. compar., ch. xiii. 13 reff. aft χριστον ins αὐτου N!(&3 disapproving). sah goth [Thdrt] Iren-int, [Tert, Archel, Ambrst]. 16. om εἰ to eyerp. (homeotel) Ῥ am(with fuld). 17. aft vuwy ins est BD! (vss (not arm)). [copt(etiam) goth(Tischdf) arm-usc Euthal-ms] Damasc : Ambrst }. h / e / ε n 4 3 \ ματαία ἢ πίστις ὑμων, ETL ἐστε i John viii. 24 bis. ix. 34. m = Rom. κἀν. 16 reff. o 4 Kings xviii. 5. see Eph. i. 12. 1 Tim. iy. 10. v. 5. vi. 17 only. Xen. Cyrop. 16 > \ \ ᾽ ΕῚ ΄ , εὖ Yap νεκροὶ οὐκ -) ἐγειίρον- ἰ.3.16, ταῦτα μὲν δὲ κατὰ πάν- των Περσῶν ἔχομεν λέ- Ύειν. Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 10. 7, ἀλη- θεύσεται κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ. = Rom. viii. 9 (reff.), 17. 1 Pet. i. 3. k = ch. vii. 39 reff. 1] = 1 Thess. n = Phil. i. 20. James iv. 14. 1 Pet. p perf., John vy. q constr., Acts xxy. 10 reff. r Rey. 17 εἰ δ᾽ χριστὸς οὐκ ἱ ἐν ταῖς 12 a ἐν χριστῷ A }] ° ἐν χριστῷ δῬἡλπι- om εἰπερ to εγειρονται 1) 43 harl! Syr ins οἱ bef νεκροι F. ins o bef xp. P. ins καὶ bef er: AN! Syr sah eth [adhue enim] Orig|-int, 19. rec ἡλπίκοτες ἐσμεν bef ev χριστω, with D*[-gr] KLP rel [syrr coptt sth arm] Orig, Chr, Thdrt ic: Ambr, Ambrst. txt ABD! EX m 17 latt goth (Orig,)[-c,] Chron, (Thl) Iren-int, 2nd ἐσμεν bef παντων.ανθρωπων 1) latt{ (not G-lat) Syr arm } goth Orig[-c,(txt,) Ambr, Ambrst]: omnibus sumus hominebus Iren-int. ing, idle also is your faith. ‘Thus καί both times refers to the hypothesis, ef xp. οὐκ ἐγήγ. 15.] Not to be joined with the former verse, as Lachm., al., and Meyer: for it does not depend on εἰ δὲ xp. «.7.A., but has its reason given below. δὲ kai, moreover. ψευδ. τοῦ θ.1 false witnesses concerning God gen. obj.), not ‘belonging to God’ (gen. subj.), as Billroth: and false witnesses, as beariny false testimony (see below), not, as Knapp, as pretending to be wit- nesses, and not being :—-there is no such distinction as Miller attempts to lay down (Diss. Exeget. de loco Paul. 1 Cor. xv. 12— 19, cited by De Wette) between ψευ- δεῖς μάρτυρες, ‘qui falsum testimonium di- cunt,’ and Wevdoudprupes, ‘qui mentiuntur se esse testes : see τοῖς, and compare (De Wette) ψευδοδιδάσκαλος, ψευδοκατήγορος. κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ | not, as commonly, and even Meyer, ‘ against God ? but as E. V., of, or concerning God: see, besides ref., Plut. de Liberis Educandis, § 4:—@ κατὰ τῶν τεχνῶν K. τῶν ἐπιστημῶν λέγειν εἰώ- θαμεν, ταὐτὸν καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς φατέον ἐστίν, ὧς εἰς τὴν παντελῇ δικαιοπραγίαν τρία δεῖ συνδραμεῖν, φύσιν, κ. λόγον, kK. ἔθος. εἴπερ ἄρα] If in reality, 88 they δβϑουΐ,...., compare Plato, Protag. p- 319 (§ 27), A καλόν, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, τέχνημα ἄρα κέκτησαι, εἴπερ κέκτησαι, and see Har- tung, Partikellehre, i. 848. 16,] Re- petition of the inference in ver. 13, for precision’s sake. 17, 18.] Repetition of the consequence already mentioned in ver, 14, but fuller, and with more refer- ence to its present and future calamitous results. 17. ματαΐα] from μάτην, and thus more directly pointing at the Jrustration_ of all on which faith relies as accomplished,—e. g. the remoyal of the guilt and power of sin ;—and of all to which hope looks forward, e. g. bliss after death for those who die in Christ, This is so, because Christ’s Resurrection ae- complished aur justification (Rom. iv. 25), and, through justification, our future bliss, even in the disembodied state (for that seems here to be treated of). 18. ἄρα καί] then also. οἱ κοιμ.7 those who fell asleep in Christ, perished (i. e. passed into misery in Hades). He uses the aorists, speaking of the act of death, not of the continuing state: the act of falling asleep in Christ was to them ἀπώλεια. ἐν χρ.» in communion with, membership of Christ, On κοιμηθέντες Meyer quotes a beautiful sentence from Photius (Quest. Rage 168 (al. 187 or 197), vol. i. p. 861, Migne) : ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ χριστοῦ θάνατον καλεῖ, ἵνα τὸ πάθος πιστώσηται᾽ ἐπὶ δὲ ἡμῶν κοίμησιν, ἵνα τὴν ὀδύνην παραμυθήσηται. ἔνθα μὲν yap παρεχώρησεν n ἀνάστασις, θαῤῥῶν κα- λεῖ θάνατον. ἔνθα δὲ ἐν ἐλπίσιν ἔτι μένει, κοίμησιν καλεῖ. 19.1 Assuming this ἀπώλεια of the dead in Christ, the state of Christians is indeed miserable. It has perhaps not been enough seen that there are here two emphases, and that μόνον be- longs to the aggregate of both. According to the ordinary interpretation. ‘If im this ἔχε only we have hope in Christ... ,’ it 608 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. XV. zs 90 s s ΔΝ ee ΠΣ νυ a a ee += ch xiti.19 20 Spypi δὲ χριστὸς " ἐγήγερται ' ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἃ ἀπαρχὴ τῶν ret. ver. 12. k Ε ΘΟ Οὐϑ \ \ x > , e 1 ἃ Rom, viii, 23 MEKOLLNMEVWD. ἐπειδὴ yap δι’ ἀνθρώπου [ὁ] θάνατος, reff. \ 5 ’ 5) θ ΄ ee w aA 29 » \ vactsxv.a καὶ δι ἀνθρώπου “ ἀνάστασις δὶ νεκρῶν. ὥςπερ γὰρ reff. Ἢ ᾿ ν 3 wrer sre, X gy τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, οὕτως Kai * ἐν TO It 2Cors. χριστῷ πᾶντες ¥ ζωοσποιηθήσονται. 58 ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ . Col. i. 16. Gal. it i7. ‘Eph. i. 4. iii, 11. y Rom. iv. 17 reff. 20. for vum, νυν F Dial,. ins των bef vexpwy F Damasc-comm, rec at end adds eyeveto (supplemental gloss), with D3{-gr] KL rel syrr goth Thdrt Damasce Orig-int, : γενόμενος 80: om ABD!FPN 17 latt coptt [wth] arm Orig[,-c, ](and int,) Dial, {Chr, Euthal-ms] Iren-int, Hil, [Ambrst]. 21. δια (twice) F. om o (bef @avaros) ABD! KN 17(appy) Orig, Dial, Ath, Ps-Ath, [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms] Damase (appy to conform to avacr. below: this is more prob than to suppose with Meyer that it has been introd from Rom y. 12): ins D?3FLP rel Orig[-c], Eus, [Did, Cyr-p,] Ath, Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt Euther,. [Of these Eus Cyr-jer Chr Euther, have 7 avaor. also. | 23. δὲ is written over the line by XN! [om Orig,(-ins,) ]. would be implied that in reality we shall have hope in Christ in another state also, which would not agree with the perfect ἠλπικότες ἐσμέν. The right arrangement of the Greek gives the key to the sentence: εἰ (ἐν TH ζωῇ ταύτῃ ἐν χριστῷ ἠλπικότες ἐσμὲν) udvov,—‘if all we have done is merely having hoped in Christ in this life,’ ‘if it is there to end, and that hope have no result...’ The perf. ἠλπικότες ἐσμ. implies the endurance of the hope through our lives. ἐλεειν. πάντ.) We are most to be pitied (most miserable) of all men; viz. because they, all other men, live at ease,—we on the contrary are ever ex- posed to danger ud death: because our hope is more incense than that of all others, and leads us to forego more: and to be disappointed in it, would be the height of misery. 20—28.] Reassertion of the truth that Christ Is RISEN from the dead,—and prophetic exposition of the consequences of that great event. 20.] νυνί, ‘as matters now stand:’ see τῆ, [and note.]| ἀπαρχ. τ. Kekoup. | (as) (the) first-fruit of them that sleep (anarthrous, because categorematical). For the construction Meyer compares Eur. Or. 1098: Ἑλένην κτάνωμεν, Mevedréw λύπην mxpav. The sense is, ‘Christ, in rising from the dead, is but the firstling or earnest of the resurrection of the whole number of those that sleep.’ There does not appear to be any intended reference to the legal ordinance of the tirst-fruits (Lev. xxiii. 10, 11): but however general the application of the analogy may be, it can hardly fail to have been suggested to the mind of a Jew by the Levitieal ordinances, especially as our Lord rose on the ‘very morrow after the Paschal Sabbath, when (l. c) the first-fruits were offered. τῶν κεκοιμημένων, from the logical connexion, should mean, not the dead in Christ, but all the dead; see next verse: but it is the Christian dead who are betore the Apostle’s mind, when he calls our risen Lord ἀπαρχὴ τῶν KEK. 21.] Man the bringer-in both of death and life: explanation (not proof) of Christ being the ἀπαρχὴ τ. κεκοιμ.: and (1) in that He is Man: it being necessary that the first-fruit should be as the lump. The verity lying at the root of this verse is, that by MAN ONLY can general effects pervading the whole human race be in- troduced. δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου, sc. ἐστίν. 22. (2) In that He is (and here the fact of His being the Lord of, Life and Righteousness, and the second and spiritual Head of our nature, is assumed) to us the bringer-in of LiFe, as Adam was the bringer-in of DEATH. ἐν τῷ °A8., ἐν τῷ χριστῷ] in community with, as partakers in a common nature with, Adam and Christ: who are respectively the sources, to the whole of that nature (πάντες), of death, and life, i.e. (here) physical death, and rescue from physical death. The practice of Paul to insulate the objects of his present attention from all ulterior considerations, must be care- fully here borne in mind. The antithesis is merely between the bringing in of death by Adam, and of life (its opposite) by Christ. No consequence, whether on the side of death or of life, is brought into con- sideration. That death physical involved death eternal—that life eternal (in its only worthy sense) involves bliss eternal, is not so much as thought of, while the two great opposites, Death and Life, are under consideration. ‘This has been missed by many Interpreters, and the reasoning thereby marred. But the ancients, Chrys., Theophyl., Theodoret, CEeum., and Olsh., De Wette, and Meyer, keep to the wniver- sal reference. Theophylact’s note is clear and striking: αἰτίαν προυςτίθησι δι᾽ ἧς mo~ τοῦται τὰ εἰρημένα" ἔδει γάρ, φησιν, αὐτὴν ABDFK LPrab edefg hklm 017. 47_ 20—24. IPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 609 O7 Z / " 1 ’ Ἁ Ud ” a et A Lal ἰδίῳ 5 τάγματι" " ἀπαρχὴ χριστός, ἔπειτα ὃ οἱ τοῦ χριστοῦ «here only. 1 Kings 1v. 10. hel gle athe Be “ings ἦν. 10 "ἐν τῇ ᾿Ξ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, 3' εἶτα τὸ 4 τέλος, ὅταν ὅπαρα- 75K™8***"" Rom. xvi. 10,11. ch. i. 11. xxiv. 3, &c. e = Matt. xi. 27. rec om του (bef xpiatov) (by a mistake appy). b = 1 Thess. ii. 19. iii. 13. v. 23. James v. 7,8 al. (ch. xvi. 17 reff.) a w. gen., see c = Matt. 1 Ροῖ. ἵν. 7. 1 John ii. 28. d — Matt. xxiv. 6, 14. ins o bef ev τὴ παρουσια and add ελπισαντες F G-lat vulg-ed [Orig-int, Hil, Ambrst]. (qui in adventu(m) ejus erediderunt demid fuld [spec], sperantes is written over eA7. in the gr column of F: on the other hand, am [tol] D-lat F-lat have ix adventu ejus ; fri Aug,, im presentia ejus.) 24. rec mapadw (alteration to conform to katapynon, the propriety of the pres being overlooked : see note), with KL rel Orig, Eus, Chr, [Euthal-ms] 'Thdrt Daimasce : παραδιδω ADPX Hip, [Marcell,] Eus, Did, Bas[-mss,| Nys,: txt BF. (17 def.) νικῆσαι τὴν ἡττηθεῖσαν φύσιν, καὶ τὸν καταβληθέντα, αὐτὸν ἐκνικῆσαι καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδάμ, τουτέστι διὰ τὸ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ πταῖσμα, πάντες τῷ θανάτῳ ὑὕὑπέπεσον'" οὕτως οὖν ἐν χριστῷ πάντες ἀναστήσονται" τουτέστι διὰ τὸ εὑρεθῆναι τὸν χριστὸν ἀνα- μάρτητον κ. ἀνένοχον τῷ θανάτῳ, καὶ ἑκόντα μὲν ἀποθανεῖν, ἀναστῆναι δέ, καθὸ οὐκ ἣν δυνατὸν αὐτὸν κρατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς φθορᾶς, roy ἀρχηγὸν τῆς (ζωῆς. See on the great antithesis, Rom. v. 12 ff., and notes. 23.| But in this universal Resurrection, ALL SHALL NOT HOLD THE SAME RANK. Chrys. rightly, εἶτα, ἵνα μὴ τὴν ζωοποί- now κοινὴν ἀκούσας, καὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς νομίσῃς σώζεσθαι, ἐπήγαγεν ἕκαστος δὲ KT Ne, το OMS αχχῖχ. .}...967. τάγμα is not order of priority, but rank, or ‘troop in an army, so Plut., Otho, p. 1072 (Wetst.): λεγεῶνες, οὕτω yap Ta τάγματα Ῥωμαῖοι καλοῦσιν ἐπίκλησιν. The three ranks are mentioned in order of priority, but this does not constitute their distinctive character :—Christis the ἀπαρχή this is His ἴδιον τάγμα, see Col. i. 18 :— οἱ τοῦ χριστοῦ follow at His coming, who are the φύραμα (as understood by the con- text, and implied by ἀπαρχή), in the proper and worthiest sense, made like unto Him and partaking of His glory; then (after how long or how short a time is not declared, and seems to have formed no part of the revelations to Paul, but was afterwards revealed,—see Rev. xx. 4—6: compare also 1 Thess. iv. 15—17) shall come THE END, viz. the resurrection of the rest of the dead, here veiled over by the general term τὸ TéAos,—that resurrection not being in this argument specially treated, but only that of Christians. The key to the understanding of this passage is to be found in the prophecy of our Lord, Matt. xxiv., xxv., but especially in the latter chapter. The resurrection and judg- ment of of τοῦ χριστοῦ forming the sub- ject of vv. 1—30 there, and τὸ τέλος.--- the great final gathering of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, of vv. 31—46. ἀπαρχή, therefore necessarily the first τάγμα : and hence the word stands first. ot τοῦ xp.] = vf νεκροὶ ev xpiatg@, 1 Thess. iv. 16. No Vou. Tt. mention occurs here of any judgment of these his ἴδιοι δοῦλοι, as in Matt. xxv., for it does not belong to the present subject. ἐν τῇ Wap. αὖτ.) ἐν as forming part of, involved in, His appearing,— which, as the great event of the time, includes their resurrection in it. It ought to be needless to remind the student of the distinction between this παρουσία and the final judgment ; it.is here peculiarly impor- tant to bear it in mind. 24. εἶτα] then, next in succession, introducing the third rayua,—see above. τὸ τέλος] the end κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν : not the end of the resurrection, as Meyer, after Theodoret, (Keum., Bengel, al. :—nor, of this present world, as Chrys., al.,—which properly happens at the παρουσία: nor exactly, of the Kingdom of Christ, as Grot. and Billroth: but generally, THE END, when all shall be accomplished, the bringing in and fulness of the Kingdom by the subjuga- tion of the last enemy, the whole course of [the] mediatorial work of Christ, the salvation of the elect; the time indicated by Matt. xxv. ult.: καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι els κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. ὅταν παραδιδοῖ) when He (Christ) gives up (the pres., for that which is certainly attached to the event as its accompaniment—éray indicating the uncertainty of the time when, and the verb being probably subjunctive: see Winer, Moulton’s Trans. p. 360, note 2), the Kingdom to God, and the Father (reff. : to Him who is God and His Father) Then the rest of the section as far as ver. 28, is in explanation of the giving up the kingdom. And it rests on this weighty verity : the KINGDOM OF CHRIST over this world, in its beginning, its furtherance, and its completion, has one great end,—THE GLOKIFICATION OF THE FATHER BY THE Son. Therefore, when it shall be fully established, every enemy overcome, every thing subjected to Him, He will,—not, reign over it and abide its King, but DELIVER IT UP TO THE FatHER. Hence as in ver, 25, His reign will endure, not, like that of earthiy kings, WHEN He shall have put ali enemies under RR 610 f - Acts xx. 25 al. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@!IOTS A, XV. διδοῖ τὴν "βασιλείαν ὃ τῷ θεῶ καὶ ὃ πατρί, ὅταν ™ καταρ- rae 3 , nm i ’ \ \ lal k ᾿Ὶ / \ i , gsee Rom. xv. yon πᾶσαν 'apynv Kat πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ ' δύναμιν. 38 (reff.). os ’ \ ς Ν \ ii. ἐχθροὺς ὑπο τοὺς = { Η Ἃ κ -“ θ / πὲ 1 καταργεῖταν ὁ θάνατος. ΄ » an "aug πόδας αὐτοῦ. ἢ Matt. xxil. 44 ||, Acts ti. 35, ἃ Heb. i, 13. x. 13, from Psa. cix. 1. ch. vi. 16 (reff.). του θὺ &?}. ’ ’ “-“ πόδας αὐτοῦ. Ξ a \ , v Re A 7 \ » 25:1 $6? γὰρ αὐτὸν ™ βασιλεύειν, ἄχρι ov " θῇ πάντας τοὺς 26 ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς 27 [lavta γὰρ ° ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ [κέ \ ” ed 3 k £ , ὅταν δὲ Peinn ὅτι Tavta * ὑποτέ- o Rom. viii. 20 reff. Psa. viii. 6. p ellips., [for πατρι, πνι F-gr(not G).] 25. rec axpis, with B27 DF K LN rel: txt AB'PX! 17 (Chr-c,) {[Euthal-ms] Damase. rec aft axpt ov ins αν ( perhaps from Matt xxii. 42 ||, or, as Meyer, from Lxx, Ps cix. 1), with D?-3KLN3 rel Orig,{-c, ?] Marcell, Cas, | Did; Mare,} Chr, Thdrt: om ABD!FPR! a? 17 Hip, Orig, Eus, Epiphsape { Huthal-ms] Damase. aft εχθρους ins αὐτου AF 17 Syr coptt goth eth Orig,/-int,) Marcell, Eus, Cas, Cyr-jer, [ Did, Marc, | Tert, Hil, : om BDKLPN® rel vulg(with am demid [fuld tol], agst har) F-lat [fri]) syr arm Hip, Orig,(-int,) Marcell, Eus, Ath, Chr, [Nys, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase Iren[{-int, } Hil, [Ambrst]. om αὐτου F(not F-lat). 26. This ver in D!{and lat] N-corr! tol harl'! goth eth [Hil,] Ambrst Jer stands after πόδας αὐτοῦ ver 27: om ver 26 and 1st clause of ver 27 (Aome@otel) NR (ins (but see above) N-corr!:3) 17. 92(sic). 27. om Ist ort B vulg D-lat Hip, [Did, Chr,] Iren[-int, Hil, Ambrst]. (not F-lat Aug,-) His feet, but only ΤΙΙ1, He shall have, &c., —and then will be absorbed in the all- pervading majesty of Him for whose glory it was from first to last carried onward. It may be observed that the whole of this respects the mediatorial work and king- dom: the work of redemption, -- and that Lordship over dead and living, for which “Christ both died and rose. Consequently nothing is here said which can affect either (1) His coequality and coeternity with the Father in the Godhead, which is prior to and independent of this mediatorial work, and is not limited to the mediatorial kingdom; or (2) the eternity of His Humanity: for that Humanity ever was and is subordinate to the Father; and it by no means follows that when the media- torial kingdom shall be given up to the Father, the Humanity, in which that kingdom was won, shall be put off: nay, the very fact of Christ in the body being the tirst-fruits of the resurrection, proves that His body, as ours, will endure for ever: as the truth that our humanity, even in glory, can only subsist before God by virtue of His Humanity, makes it plain that He will be vERY MAN to all eternity. τὴν βασιλείαν That king- dom, which in its fullest sense is then first His. At this very time of τὸ τέλος, Matt. xxv. 34, He first calls Himself by the title of 6 βασιλεύς. The name will no sooner be won, than laid at the feet of the Father, thus completing by the last great act of Redemption the obedience which He πων οἰ τῷ in his Incarnation. and in his eath. ὅταν καταργή (aor. When He shall have eouhone Some ins ta bef 2nd παντα δὲ [ Did, }. &e.: see above. πᾶσ. apy. K.T.A.] not only, as Meyer, &c., hostile power and government, but as the context necessi- tates, ALL power. Christ being manifested as universal King, every power co-ordinate with His must come under the category of hostile: all kings shall submit to Him: the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ : —and see the similar expressions Eph. i. 21, where speaking proleptically, the Apostle clearly indicates that legitimate authorities, all the powers that be, are in- cluded. Compare by all means Rev. xi. 15. 25.] See on the last verse :—this is the divine appointment with regard to the mediatorial kingdom,—that it should last till, and only till, all enemies shall have been subdued to it. θῇ, viz. Christ, not the Father, as Beza, Grot., Est., Billr., al.: it is parallel with καταργήσῃ, and included in the mediatorial acts of Christ, who in His world’s course goes forth νικῶν kal ἵνα νικήσῃ, Rev. vi. 2. It is otherwise with ὑπέταξεν, ver. 27: see there. 26. | Connect ἔσχατ. ἐχθρός together ; not as Bloowf., “last of all, the enemy Death is to be destroyed,” which is ungrammatical. If ἔσχ. is to stand alone, ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται must be “is destroyed as an enemy.” Death is the last enemy, as being the con- sequence of sin: when he is overcome and done away with, the whole end of Redemp- tion is shewn to have been accomplished. Death is personified, as in Rev. χχ. 14. katTapyettat,—pres., either as a prophetic certainty as παραδιδοῖ above,—or as an axiomatic truth. 27.) Scriptural proof of the above declaration, ABFEK LPR ak cdetg hklm υ 17.47 V2 25—29. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 6114 re A “ \ e - Ν cre τακται, © δῆλον “ ὅτι " ἐκτὸς τοῦ ο ὑποτάξαντος αὐτῷ Ta aGal.iii-1 ͵΄ “ \ e A A \ ΄ r \ 33: πάντα 38 ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, τότε [καὶ] * Hee? ἀν ς e\ os 7, ἔχ ἘΣ ͵΄ Sable \ 7Zonly. _ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ο ὑποταγήσεται τῷ “ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ TA Num. xxvii. 99 ἐπεὶ u TL s == Acts xxvi. 22. Isa. xxvi. , ““ { 3 ε 60 \ t 7 3 a TaVTa, Wa η) ο εος TTAVTA ἐν πασιν. u / ς , ς \ n a ν ew 13. ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν ; εἰ "ὅλως + = Gols τι. ch, xu. 6.) Herod. iii, 157, πάντα ἣν ἐν τοῖσι Βαβυλωνίοισι Ζώπυρος. Polyb. v. 26.5, τὸ ὅλον αὐτοῖς ἣν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ᾿Απελλῆς. u = Mark xi, 5. John xi. 47. Acts xxi. 18. v Matt. νυ. 34. ch. v. 1. vi. 7 only +. aft vroreraxta ins avtw et F [vulg Syr copt arm] Hip, Orig[-int,] Hil, Ambr[st]; bef υπ., [Cyr-jer, ] Epiph,. om τα Εἰ ποῦ G]. 28. om 1st clause (homeotel) X!(ins X-corr!) m [Hip, Hil,(-ms,) ]. avtw bef vrotayn D Eus, Orig-int,[ txt, | Iren[-int, |. om «ka: B D![and lat] F[-gr(and G-lat) ] 17 am(with fuld harl mar tol) Syr Orig, Marcell, [Did,] Iren-int, Ps-Ath-int, Hil; Jer: ins AD?KLPR [vulg-clem F-lat fri demid] rel syr coptt [eth arm] Ps-Ign, Hip, Eus, Ath, Ps-Ath, Ces, Cyr-jer, Chr, [Bas, Nys, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase Orig-int; Yert, Hil, [Ambrst ]. θεος bef 7 D'{and lat]. rec ins ta bef 3rd παντα, with D5FKLPR rel Orig, Marcell, Eus, Ath, [Did,] Tit, Epiph, Cas Cyr-jer, Chr, [Nys, ] Thdrt Damase: om ABD! 17 arm] Hip (Orig,) Marcell, Eus, [Euthal-ms]. 29. ποιησωσιν τὴ 47, ποιουσιν Εἰ. ὑπέταξ. viz., from the Psalm,—Gop, the Kather. See on the Psalm itself, Heb. ii. 6 ff. notes. εἴπῃ, scil. ὁ θεός, the same subject as ὑπέταξεν. Meyer alone, as it seems to me, gives the right construc- tion of ὅταν... ὑποτέτακται. “The aor. εἴπῃ must be rendered regularly, not in the present sense, but as a futurum exactum: see Luke vi. 26: Plato, Parm. p. 143, ὁ (ti δ᾽ ὅταν εἴπω οὐσία τε καὶ ἕν, ἄρα οὐκ ἀμφοτέρω ;),—Ion, p. 535, B (ὅταν εὖ εἴπῃς ἔπη καὶ ἐκπλήξῃς μάλιστα τοὺς θεωμένου5). The time referred to, is that when the as yet unfulfilled πάντα ὑπέταξεν shall be fulfilled and completed : hence it is no longer the aor., but the perf. ὑποτέτακται. The meaning then is: ‘when God, who in Ps. viii. 6 has an- nounced the ὑπόταξις, shall hereafter have declared that this ὑπόταξις is come to pass,’ . . . This form of expression was suggested to the Apostle by his having already ex- pressed himself in the words of a saying of God.” Irender then, But when God shail have declared that all things have been subjected to Him, it is evident that they have been subjected (ellipsis of the predicate of the foregoing sentence after δῆλον ὅτι and οἶδ᾽ ὅτι is common; so Plato, Gorg. p. 475, C, ‘ οὐκοῦν κακῷ ὑπερβάλ- λον τὸ ἀδικεῖν κάκιον ἂν εἴη τοῦ ἀδικεῖ- σθαι," ---- δῆλον δὴ ὅτι;,᾽---5011. κάκιον ἂν εἴη. Kiihner, ὃ 852, d) with the excep-_ tion of Him who subjected all things to Him. 28.] On the sense, see above. “The interpretations, that subjection is only an hyperbolical expression for the entire harmony of Christ with the Father (Chrys., Theophyl., Gc.) .—the limitation of it to His human nature (Theodoret, _ ' Aug., Jerome, Est., Wolf, al.), with the declarative explanation, that it will then Rk aft oAws ins οἱ P. become plain to all, that Christ even in regard of His kingship, is, on the side of His Humanity, dependent on the Father (Flatt)—and the addition, that Christ will then in His divine nature reign with the Futher (Calv.:—‘ regnum—ab humanitate sua ad gloriosam divinitatem quodammodo traducet’) ;—the interpretation (of αὐτὸς 6 vids!) as referring to Christ’s mystical Body, i.e. the Church (Theodoret),—are idle subterfuges (leere Ausfliidte).” De Wette. The refutation of these and all other attempts to explain away the doctrine here plainly asserted, of the ultimate sub- ordination of the Son, is contained in the three precise and unambiguous words, av- τὸς ὁ vids. ἵνα ἡ ὁ θ. πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν] that God (alone) may be all things in all,—i. 6. recognized as sole Lord and King: ‘omnia erunt subordinata Filio, Filius Patri” Bengel. Numerous exam- ples of πάντα in this sense (less commonly τὰ πάντα, Kiihner, ὃ 422) may be found in Wetst. 29—34.] ARGUMENTS FOR THE REALITY OF THE RESURKEC- TION, from the practice (1) of those who were baptized for the dead, (2) of the Apostles, &c., who submitted to daily peril of death. 29.] ἐπεί resumes the main argument, which has been interrupted by the explanation since ver. 23 of ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι. After it is an ellipsis of ‘if it be as the adversaries suppose.’ τί ποιήσουσιν) There is in these words a tacit reprehension of the practice about to be mencioned, which it is hardly possible altogether to miss. Both by the third person, and by the art. before Ban, he indirectly separates himself and those to whom he is writing from participation in or approval of the practice :—the meaning being, what will become of—‘ what ac- 2 ai 612 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. Kv. ΄ / ς \ ΑὙΤῊΝ νεκροὶ οὐκ δ ἐγείρονται, "τί "καὶ βαπτίξζονται ὑπὲρ ARDFK here bis a ΄ A er see Rab ᾿ Rom. vii, αὐτῶν; 29% 7d * καὶ ἡμεῖς Y κινδυνεύομεν * πᾶσαν * ὥραν j;cuetg 24.) y Acts xix. 27 reff. (-vos, 2 Cor. xi. 26.) z here only. Exod. xviii. 22,26. Levit. xvi. 2. " τῷ br rec (for avtwv) των νεκρων (mechanical repetition of the above), with D*[-gr] L rel Syr Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] (Ec: avtwy των vexpwy m 48. 62: txt ABD! FKPN ἃ d 17, 47 latt syr eoptt goth arm Orig, Dial,[but mss vary] Epiph, [Euthal-ms 1514, Damase Jac-nisib, Ambrst]. count can they give of their practice ?’ ot βαπτιζόμενοι) those who are in the habit of being baptized—not οἱ βαπτισθέντες. The distinction is impor- tant as affecting the interpretation. See below. ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν) on behalf of the dead; viz. the same νεκροΐ who are spoken of in the next clause and through- out the chapter as the subjects of ava- oracis—not νεκροί in any figurative sense. τῶν vexp., the art. marking ‘the particular dead persons on behalf of whom the act took place. Before we pass to the exegesis, it will be well to go through the next question—ei ὅλως x.7.A. If dead men are not raised at all, why do they trouble themselves (ri καί as in reff.) to be bap- tized for them ? Thus much being said as to the plain meaning of the words used, there can be no doubt as to their interpretation. The only legitimate re- Serence is, to a practice, not otherwise known to us, not mentioned here with any approval by the Apostle, not gene- rally prevalent (οὗ βαπτ.), but“in use by some, of survivors al/owing themselves to -be baptized on behalf of (believing ?) Sriends who had died without baptism. With the subsequent similar practices of the Cerinthians (Epiph. Her. xxviii. § 6, p- 114) and Spo a (Chrys., Tertull. de resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 864, adv. Mare. v. 10, p. 494 f.) this may or may not have been connected. All we clearly see from the text, is that it unquestionably did exist. With regard to the other inter- pretations, Bengel well says, “Tanta est interpretationum varietas, ut is, qui non dicam varietates ipsas, sed varietatum catalogos colligere velit, dissertationem scripturus sit.” I will give a few of them, mostly in the words of their authors : Chrys. (Hom. xl. Ρ. 379) :--οὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, τουτέστι τῶν σωμάτων. καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τούτῳ βαπτίᾳῃ, τῇ τοῦ νεκροῦ σώματος ἀναστάσει, πιστεύων ὅτι (Migne reads THY TV. O. ἀνάστασιν. πιστ., ὅτι) οὐκέτι μένει νεκρόν. καὶ σὺ μὲν διὰ τῶν ῥημάτων λέγεις νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν" ὃ δὲ ἱερεύς, ὥςπερ ἐν εἰκόνι Tul... . δείκνυσί σοι... «. διὰ τοῦ ὕδατος" τὸ γὰρ βαπτίζεσθαι K. καταδύεσθαι, εἶτα ἀνανεύειν, τῆς εἰς Gdov καταβάσεως ἐστὶ σύμβολον κ. τῆς ἐκεῖθεν ἀνόδου. διὸ κ. τάφον τὸ βάπτισμα ὁ Π. καλεῖ (Rom. vi. 4),—Theophyl.: φησὶν οὖν, ὅτι of πιστεύ- σαντες ὕτι ἔσται ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν σωμά- των, καὶ βαπτισθέντες ἐπὶ τοιαύταις ἐλπίσι, τί ποιήσουσιν ἀπατηθέντες ; τί δὲ ὅλως καὶ βαπτίζονται ἄνθρωποι ὑπὲρ ἀναστάσεως, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ mpusduxia ἀναστάσεως, εἰ ν οὐκ ἐγ.; and so in the main, Pelag., (Ecum., Phot., Corn.-a-Lap., -Wetst. — Theodoret:—6 βαπτιζόμενός, φησι, τῷ δεσπότῃ συνθάπτεται, ἵνα τοῦ θανάτου κοινωνήσας καὶ THS ἀναστάσεως γενήῆται κοινωνός" εἰ δὲ νεκρόν ἐστι τὸ σῶμα, καὶ οὐκ ἀνίσταται, τί δήποτε καὶ βαπτίζεται ; and so Castal., al. ΑἹ] these senses would require τί ποιήσετε βαπτισθέντες, to say nothing of the impossibility of thus under- standing ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν. Estius explains ὑπὲρ τῶν vexp. as = ‘jamjam morituri,’ and Calvin justifies this, ‘baptizari pro mortuis erit sic baptizari ut mortuis non υἱοῖς prosit.’ So too Epiph. (1. c.),—of catechumens who πρὸ THs τελευτῆς λουτροῦ καταξιοῦνται :---ἂαἀπὰ Bengel :—“ baptizan- tur super mortuis ii, qui mox post bap- tismum ad mortuos aggregabuntur.” But against this ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν is decisive,— as is ὑπέρ against ‘ over the dead,’ i.e. over their sepulchres (Luth., al.) : this local sense of ὑπέρ not being found in the N. ἽΝ, Le Clerc, Hammond, Olsh., al., explain ὑπ. τ. vexp., ‘to fill the place of the dead.’ But, as Meyer observes, such an idea can hardly be gathered from the words, but would want explaining in the context ;— and besides, the question would thus be irrelevant, because, the place of the dead being supplied by their successors, it would be no matter to them, whether the dead themselves rose or not: whereas now, the benefits of baptism being supposed to be conveyed to the dead by the baptism of his substitute, the proceeding would be stulti- Jied, if the dead could never rise to claim those benefits. This, the only justifiable rendering, is adopted by Ambrose, and by Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, al., and recently by Billroth, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette, al. The ordinary objection to it is, that thus the Apostle would be, giving his sanction to a superstitious usage, or at all events mentioning it without rep'robation. But this is easily answered, by remember- ing that ifthe above view of τί ποιήσουσιν is correct, he does no¢ mehtion it without aslur on it;—and more completely still, as Rickert (in Meyer), “ usurpaci ab eo mo- 90---ἶὐῷ, 21 a ? ¢ , ’ / b Ἂν \ c e , καθ ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκω, νὴ τὴν “ ὑμετέραν ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 613 de καύχη- a Acts ii. 46 here only. σιν, en SU ἣν 9 ἔχω ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ ad ἡμῶν. Ee oly: ς 32 εἰ Γ᾿ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ὅ ἐθηριομάχησα ἐν Ἔκ όσον, h » 3 \ > w2 / ὄφελος ; εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ™ ἐγείρονται, d Rom. iii. 27 reff. g here only +. 33. see Rom. xv. 4. note, and ch. iii. 3 reff. i Isa. xxii, 13. 16 only. τί foe TO c= ae xi. i 7 φόβῳ φώγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν" τῷ Guess Thucyd. 1 e Rom. xv. 17. fies h James ii. 14, 16 only. Job xy. 3 only. 31. Steph nuetepay, with Aa (h!?) k m 23. 4. 441. 51-6. 721. 89, 120-2 lect-14 xth Orig[-c, Euthal-ms(nuepav) Thdrt, | : (but mss vary) Chr, Thdrt,; Damase Ambr, Ambrst Augsepe ]- 2} Chr, Thdrt Damase Ambrst : syrr coptt [goth] eth Dial [Cyr- Pp Euthal-ms] Aug;sepe} Pel Bede. DFL rel arm-zoh Orig[ -c twand nu. D!(and lat) Ambrst. 32. om to D!F Clem). rem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem, in quo impugnando versabatur, radicitus evellendum ; ipsius autem reprelendendi aliud tempus expectari.” See a inultitude of other interpretations in Pool’s Synopsis and in Stanley’s note. His concluding re- marks are worth quoting : “ On the whole, therefore, this explanation of the passage (that given above) may be safely accepted, (1) as exhibiting a curious relic of primi- tive superstition, which, after having, as the words imply (?), prevailed generally in the apostolical church, gradually dwindled away till it was only to be found in some obscure sects, where it lost its original significance : (2) as containing an example of the Apostle’s mode of dealing with a practice, with which he could have no real sympathy; not condemning or ridiculing it, but appealing to it as an expr ession, however distorted, of their better feelings.” 30. ] Not only the practice of those just spoken of, but his own, and that of those like him, who lived a life of perpetual exposure to death, were absurd, if there be no resurrection. Observe that the argu- ment here applies equally to the future existence of the soul ; and so Cicero uses it, Tusc. Quest. i. 15: « Nescio quomodo in- heret in mentibus quasi seculorum quod- dam augurium futurorum . .. quo quidem demto, quis tam esset amens, qui semper in laboribus et periculis viveret ?” 31.] ‘To die daily is a strong expression for to be daily in sight of death and expecting it. See 2 Cor.iv. 11. This he strengthens by an asseveration, grounded on his boast of them as his work in Christ: not that this is im- mediately or proximately at stake in the matter, but much as we should say, “ As I love you, it is true.” He would not think of deceiving those of whom he boasted be- fore God in connexion with Christ. tper.] gen. abj., see reff. vy, the affirma- tive, as ua is the negative particle of ad- juration: but ναὶ μά is often found in an affirmative sense: see Kiihner, § 701. 82.) The stress of the first clause is on κατὰ txt BDFKLP rel [latt syrr coptt goth arm Dial, rec om adeAga, w ith ins ABKPR m 17 vulg fri om xp. ino. ἄνθρωπον, and its meaning, merely as man, i. 6. ‘according to this world’s views,’ “as one who has no hope beyond the grave ;’ seeref. If thusonly he fought, &c., where was his profit (seeing he despised all those things which κατὰ ἄνθρωπον might compen- sate for such a fight,—fame, praise, ἄς.) ? The renderings, ὅσον τὸ εἰς ἀνθρώπους (Chrys. p. 381), i.e. ‘so far as one can be said θηριομαχεῖν against men,’—and κατὰ ἀνθρώπων λογισμὸν θηρίων ἐγενόμην Bopa (Theodoret),—‘ exempli causa’ (Semler, Rosenmiiller),—‘ ut hominum more loquar’ (Estius and Bloomf.), are all constrained, and scarcely to be extorted from the words. ἐθηριομάχησα7 I fought with beasts (aor. referring to one special occasion). How? andwhen? Most ancient and mo- dern Commentators take the expression figuratively, as used in Appian, B. C. ii. p. 763 (Wetst.), where Pompey says, οἵοις θηρίοις waxdue9a,—and Ignat. ad Rom. 5, p. 689 f., ἀπὸ Συρίας μέχρι Ῥώμης Onpio- μαχῶ διὰ γῆς K. θαλάσσης, δεδεμένος δέκα λεοπάρδοις, ὅ ἐστι στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα. So, of our text, Tertull. de Resurr. 48, vol. ii. p- 865: “ Depugnavit ad bestias Kphesi, illas scilicet bestias Asiaticee pressure.” And this explanation must be right : for his Roman citizenship would have precluded his ever being literally thrown to beasts : and even supposing him to have waived it, and been miraculously rescued, as Ambrst., Theodoret, Erasm., Luther, Calv.,, 4]. suppose, is it conceivable that such an event should have been altoge- ther unrecorded in the Acts? Adopting the figurative rendering,—we cannot fix on any recorded conflict which will suit the words, His danger from Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen (Acts xix.) had not yet happened (see Prolegg. § vi. 2): but we cannot tell what opposition, justi- fying this expression, the ἀντικείμενοι πολ- Aol of ch. xvi. 9 may ere this have made to his preaching. εἰ νεκρ. If dead men rise not, i.e. ‘if none of the deud rise. ‘These words are best joined with 014 “ a > , b «ἀν Matt. vi. Κ αὔριον yap ἀποθνήσκομεν. 30. Luke xil. 28. xiii. 32, 33. Acts xxiii. 20. xxv. 22. James ιν. 13. Exod. vill. 29. 1 ch. vi. 9 reff. m = ch. iii. 17 reff. ni here only. ᾿ Sir. xx. 26 only. o = here (Matt. x1. 30. p here only. Exod. xxi. 10. Prov. vii. 21. 37. met.,as here, Joeli.5. avavyd., 2 Tim. ii. 26. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 23) only. see Deut. xvi. 20. t = ch. vii. 35. xiv. 12 al. u ch. vi. 5 only. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT®S A. Luke v. 39. vi. 35. Rom. ii. 4. Eph. iv. 32. Wisd. vill. 18 only. i Ps. xxxiv. 26. XV. 33 μὴ ᾿πλανᾶσθε. ™ φθείρου- σιν " ἤθη 5 χρηστὰ " ὁμιλίαι κακαί. 58 «ἐκνήψρατε * δικαίως, καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε" " ἀγνωσίαν γὰρ θεοῦ τινὲς ἔχουσιν. ἱ πρὸς " ἐντροπὴν ὑμῖν λαλῶ. 35 VAAN’ " ἐρεῖ τις Πῶς * ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί ; ποίῳ 1 Pet. ii. 3) only. Gen. ix. 24. 1 Kings xxv. 1 Thess. ii. 10, Tit. it. Job xxxv. 16. ΨΥ Ί5Ρ. xiii. 1 only. v James li. 18. w ver. 4. q here only. r | here (Luke xxiii. 41. s 1 Pet. ii. 15 only. 33. rec χρησθ᾽ (to suit the metre), with Clem,: txt ABDFKLPR rel Clem-hom, Eus, Ath, Chr, [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms} Thdrt Damasc, ‘Thl Ce. 34. rec Aeyw (negligence, the force of λαλω not being perceived), with AFKL rel Chr, Thdrt [Damase], dico flor(and F-lat) G-lat [προς Orig-int, simly Syr basm eth arm]: txt BDPX k m 17 Dial, (Euthal-ms], loguor vulg D-lat(and fri) Ambrst [simly syr copt goth }. 35. αλλα BP Orig,. the following, as Chrys., Theophyl., Beza, Bengel, Griesb., Meyer, De Wette, al.— not with the preceding, as Theodoret, Grot., Est., Luther, al. [and E. V.] For κατὰ ἄνθρωπον already expresses their meaning in the preceding sentence; and the form of ver. 29 seeins to justify this arrangement, besides that otherwise ody. K. πίωμεν, &c., would stand awkwardly in- sulated. day. «. πίωμεν .. .] In Isa. the words represent the recklessness of those who utterly disregard the call of God to weeping and mourning, and feast while their time lasts. Wetst. has collected very numerous parallels from the classics. The most striking perhaps is Herod. ii. 78. 33.] The tendency of the denial of the re- surrection, represented by the Epicurean maxim just quoted, leads him to hint that this denial was not altogether unconnected with a practice of too much intimacy with the profligate society around them. μὴ πλαν., as in ref., introduces a warning against moral self-deception. φθείρ. ἤθη. .| These words (according to the reading χρῆσθ᾽, which has, however, hardly any support) form an Jambic trimeter, and occur in this form in a fragment of the Thais of Menander ; but Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 14 (59), p. 350 P., says, πρὸς γοῦν Κορινθίους. . ἰαμβείῳ συγκέχρηται τραγικῴ---Ὀπΐ this may be a mere inac- curacy. Socrates, Hist. Eccl. iii. 16, quotes it as a sufficient proof that Paul was conversant with the tragedies of Euri- pides. ‘ Perbaps,” says Dr. Burton, “Me- nander took it from Euripides.” The Apos- tle may have cited it merely as a common- place current, without any idea whence it came ;—and χρηστά seems to shew this. The plur. ὁμιλίαι, points out the repetition of the practice. Meyer quotes Plato, Rep. Vill. p. 550, διὰ τὸ μὴ κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς εἶναι τὴν φύσιν, ὁμιλίαις δὲ ταῖς τῶν ἄλλων κακαῖς κεχρῆσθαι, 34. ἐκνήψ.] Awake out of (your moral) intoxication, already pos- sessing you by the influence of these men. δικαίως | either, as is just,—as you ought (Wail, al.),—or, in a proper man- ner (Olsh., al.j,—or, ἐπὶ συμφέροντι καὶ χρησίμῳ (Chrys. p. 382, al.), or so as to be δίκαιοι [i.e. so as to recover your right- eousness, Which you are in danger of losing ], as E. V., Awake to righteousness. ‘The last meaning is well defended by Dr. Peile from Thue. i. 21: ἀπίστως ἐπὶ τὸ μυθῶδες ἐκνενικηκότα,----“ so as to become incredi- ble ;;—and seems to be the best. The aor. imper. ἐκνήψατε marks the quick momentary awaking; the pres. imper. μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε, On the other hand, the enduring practice of abstinence from sin (Meyer). But that this must not al- ways be rigidly pressed, see Kihner, § 445. 2. Anm. 1. ἀγνωσίαν] The stress is on this word: for some (the tives of ver. 12, most probably, are hinted at, and the source of their error pointed out) have (are affected with) ignorance (an absence of all true knowledge) of God. See ref. to Wisd. πρὸς évT. tp. A. shews that these τινές were ἐν ὑμῖν, —not the heathen without :—the exist- ence of such in the Corinthian church was a disgrace to the whole. . Aare | I am speaking; not merely 1 say this; it refers to the spirit of the whole passage. 35—50.] The argument passes from the fact of the resurrection, already sub- stantiated, to the MANNER Of it: which is indicated, and confirmed, principally by analogies from nature. 35.] The new difficulty is introduced in the form of a question from an objector. This is put first generally, πῶς ...., In what manner,— and next specifically, ποίῳ δὲ (δέ, ‘ what I mean, is... «Ὁ σώματι, With what kind of body—épx., do they (pres. as transfer- ring the action to that time,—as éyelpov- tat before: so Meyer and De W.:—or ABDFK LPN ab cdefg hklm 017.47 33 —39. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 615 ΄ \ ἃ . σώματι ἔρχονται; “ὺ χἄφρων, σὺ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ Y ζωο- x Luke αἱ, 40. xii. 20 al. Ps. xcill. 8. a 2\ A σι ἋΣ 6 / ἑ 37 \ A ah > \ ποιεῖται, ἐὰν μὴ *atroCavy καὶ O σπείρειν, OU TO πον τ] σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις, ἀλλὰ * γυμνὸν ὌΠ τύχοι, d σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λυιπῶν᾽" 38 ὁ δὲ θεὸς δίδωσιν αὐτῷ σῶμα καθὼς ἠθέλησεν, καὶ ἑκάστῳ τῶν σπερμάτων 39 οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ: ἀλλὰ ἄλλη ὁ ἴδιον σῶμα. ili. 17. d John xii. 24. Acts xxvii. 38 al. epp., here only. ΄ reff. KOKKOD, z = John xii. 24 a = here only. Ὁ Matt. xiii. 31 ||. xvil. 20 ||. John xii. 24 only. 6 ch. xiv. 10 only (reff.). opt., 1 Pet. e = ver. 23. Acts i. 26 al. b 36. rec αφρον, with KL rel Orig, [Dial Epiph, Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase]: txt ABDEFPN m 17. 47. ad loc) Chr,[-imss(txt,)] Thdrt,[txt, }. erasure) X!. Orig-int,[(om Orig.) Ambrst Aug, ]. 37. om 2nd σπειρεις N'(ins N-corr'). for ζωοποιειται, ζωογονειται β. 108! Epiph,, and(but n t aft (worSins εἰς τὴν (but marked for aft ἀποθανὴ ins wpwrov D[-gr]: pref, F latt(not fri) Dial, Iren[-int, ] for εἰ, ἡ A. 38. rec avtw bef διδωσιν, with DFKL rel fri [spec] Orig, Chr, Thdrt Ambrst : txt ABPX bdmo17 vulg(and F-lat) syrr (copt) Orig,(-int,) Dial, Epiph, {Euthal-ms] Damasce Tert,. rec ins To bef «διον, with KLX8 rel Orig, Chr Thdrt Damase Thl (Ec: om ABDFPR! 17 [arm] Epiph, [ Euthal-ims ]. 39. om 2nd capé F(not F-lat) Syr Chr-2-mss,. rec aft aAAn μεν ins capé, with Syr arm [copt Dial,}: om ABDFKLPR [ Augalic ] . om adda D![-gr] frizeth Dial, Chr, rel [latt] syr eth [Chr Euthal-ms Thdrt Ambrst Augaic |. rather perhaps, as assuming for the mo- ment the truth of the resurrection as a thing actually happening in the course of things) come (forth at that time) ? 36—41.] Analogies illustrative of the ‘question just asked : and first, that of seed sown in the earth (36—38). 36. | Meyer would point this, ἄφρων σύ, ὃ σπείρεις .. .» because according to the common punctua- tion there is necessarily an emphasis on σύ, which the context does not allow. But on the other hand, it seems to me, there is an objection to the introduction of a new matter so lamely as by ὃ σπείρει. Besides which, the emphatic ov does not necessarily require any other agency to be emphatically set against it, but may imply an appeal to the objector’s own experience (as Billr. in Dr. Peile) :—‘ thou say this, who art con- tinually witness of the process, &ec. ?’ And let it be remembered that we have another σπείρειν below, vv. 42—44, which may be set against thy sowing. Iretain therefore the stop at ἄφρων (nom. for voc. as freq. See Luke xii. 20; Mark ix. 25; Luke vii. 54, al., and Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 2), and the emphasis on ov. The similitude was used by our Lord of His own Resurrection, ref. John. ov Lworrarettar| Its lite is latent in it; but is not developed into quick and lively action without the death of the deposited seed,—i. 6. its perishing, disap- pearing from nature. The same analogy was used by the Rabbis, but to prove that the dead would rise clothed : “ ut triticum nudum sepelitur et multis vestibus orna- tum prodit, ita mnlto magis justi,’ &e. 37.] Before, the death of the seed was in- sisted on: now, the non-identity of the seed with the future plant. There is a mixture of construction, the words ὃ υπείρεις being pendent, as the sentence now stands. The two constructions as De W. observes are, εἴ τι σπείρεις, ov τὸ σ. τὸ γεν. σπείρεις,--- and ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σ. τὸ γεν. ἐστιν. He names the plant τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησό- μενον, having already in his eye the appli- cation to the Resurrection. εἰ τύχοι] if it should so happen,— peradven ure: not, ‘for example.’ See on ch, xiv. 10. τῶν λοιπῶν, 5.1]. σπερμάτων. 38.} ἠθέ- λησεν, willed, viz. at the creation : the aor. setting forth the one act of the divine Will giving to the particular seed the particular development at first, which the species re- tains: whereas θέλει would imply a fresh act of the divine Will giving to every in«i- vidual seed (not ἑκάστῳ τῶν σπερμάτων, but ἑκάστῳ σπέρματι, or rather ἑκάστῳ κόκκῳ) his own body. But the whole gift to the species being God’s, to continue or withhold, the pres. δίδωσιν still holds good. ἑκάστ. τῶν σπερμ.} to each of the (kinds of) seed; see above: τῶν is generic. ἴδιον σῶμα] a body of its own. Such then being the case with all seeds, why should it be thought necessary that the same body should rise as was sown, or that God cannot give to each a resur- rection-body, as in nature ? 39—41.] And the more,—because we have examples from analogy of various kinds of bodies ; viz. (1) in the flesh of animals (ver. 39) : (2) in celestial and terrestrial bodies (ver. 40): (3) in the various characters of light given by the sun, moon, and stars. σάρξ] animal organism (De W.). Dean Stanley’s former rendering (corrected in his 3rd edn.) of οὐ πᾶσα σάρξ, 7 αὐτὴ σάρξ, ‘no flesh is the same flesh,’ is con- trary to the usage of the passages which he alleged to defend it, where the negative 010 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. XV. fLukex st. μὲν ἀνθρώπων, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ ' κτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ Acts xxiii. 24. Rev. xviii. 135. 8 πτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ h ἰχθύων. only. Num. xx. 4, 8, ll. g here only +. Job v.7 Aq ta). 3 i. 4. 11. h Matt. vii. 10 al. epp., here ye ͵ ᾿ only. ἄστερων i John ili. 12. Phil. ii. 10 al. 4.2 Ps. Ixvii. 15. τὰ ‘ 7 m , 1 ess , \ ΄ -“- k ’ / fanded-sex- γίων δόξα, létépa δὲ ἡ τῶν * ἐπιγείων. 40 καὶ σώματα | ἐπουράνια, \ , k , Ὁ ? \ ] od U \ [4 ~ i b] καὶ σώματα * ἐπιγεια' adda ‘ETEPAa μὲν ἢ τῶν ' ἐπουρα- 41 ἄλλη ͵ \ > ΄ , \ , m δόξα ἡλίου, Kal ἄλλη ™ δόξα " σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη ™ δόξα οἀστὴρ yap “ ἀστέρος Ρ διαφέρει ἐν ™ δόξῃ. οὕτως καὶ ἡ ᾿ ἀνάστασις τῶν 4 νεκρῶν. τ σπείρεται ἐν 2 Macc. ill. 39 an 3 / 5 ᾽ τως U > ’ / only. Dan. ἣ" φθορᾷ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ᾿ ἀφθαρσίᾳ 45 1 σπείρεται ἐν " ἀτιμίᾳ, iv. 23 (26) Theod-A Ald. compl. (ovp., BF.) k here bis. John iii. 12. 2Cor.v.1. Phil. ii. 10. iii. 19. James iii. 15 only +. ] = here only. see Luke ix. 29. m = Acts xxii. 11 reff. ἢ Epp., here only. Acts ii. 20 reff. o Paul, here 3ce only. Matt. ii. 2, &c. xxiv. 29|; Mk. Jude 13. Rev. i. 16 4113, Gen. i. 16. p -= and constr., Gal. iv. lonly. (Rom. ii. 18 al.) Dan. vii. 3(Theod.). q ver. 12 reff. r see ver. 36. s = Rom. viii. 21. ver. 50. Gal. vi. 8. Col. ii. 22. 2 Pet. i. 4. ii. (12 bis) 19 only. Jonah 11. 7. τ Rom. ii. 7 reff. u Rom. i. 26 reff. av@pwrov [)}} (and lat) spec] Syr Dial, Tert, [ Ambrst]. (exe fri) Syr Chr, Tert [Ambrst]: om 3rd clause Καὶ k m 47 harl!. Jat] F[-gr] Syr 'Tert [Ambrst]. om 8rd capt D!F 17 latt κτηνους D!{and om 2nd δε D'[(and lat) vulg fri spee Ambrst ]. rec om 4th capt, with AKLP rel [vulg-clem fuld? harl! spec] fri syrr Chr Thdrt Augfalic) Pel: ins BDF (17) 47 am(with demid fuld har]? tol) copt [ath arm Euthal- ms] (Damasce) Thl Orig-int, Tert, Ambrst. [πετεινων D'F a. rec ἐχθυων , αλλη Se πτηνων, with FKL rel syr Thdrt @e Orig-int,: txt ABDPX 17. 47 vulg fri [spec } Syr copt 2th arm Chr Th! Orig-int, Tert, [Ambrst.—Damasc Orig-int, transpose κτηνων and πτηνων |. 40. om 2nd σωματα F(not F-lat) [eth] (Tert,). (adda, so ABD'P.) 41. aft 150 and 2nd αλλη ins δὲ ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat]: aft 2nd, lect-8(sic).—om Ist καὶ F lect-8 vulg(and F-lat) fri copt Orig-int, [Archel, Ambrst] Jer. Κ. om yap K Orig-int,[-ins, }. is always attached to the verb ; ov δικαιω- θήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ, Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16. See Matt. xxiv. 22 ||; Acts x. 14; ch. 1. 29; 1 John iii. 15; Rev. vii. 16; ix. 4. On the other hand, where the negative is attached to πᾶς, as here, the sentence is a particular negative, not an universal : e.g. Rom. x. 16, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν : ix. 6,7; Heb. iii. 16; Matt. vil. 21, οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων μοι κύριε κύριε εἰς- ελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, —where the rendering in question would involve portentous consequences indeed. I observe that Conyb. also, although dis- approving on the ground of the sense, adds, “ the words of the Greek text no doubt admit of such a rendering.” κτηνῶν) properly (kréavos, κτάομαι) ani- mals possessed by man: but used in a wider sense for quadrupeds in general. 40. σώματα ἐπουράνια] not, ac- cording to our modern expression, heavenly bodies,—for they are introduced first ver. 41, and if we apply these words to them, we must suppose the Apostle to have imagined the stars to be endowed with bodies in the literal sense: for he is here comparing not figurative expressions, but physical realities :—nor (as Chrys., al.) the bodies of the righteous, as opposed to those of the wicked; for in these there is no organic difference whatever: but, as Meyer and De Wette, ‘the bodies of angels,’ — the only heavenly organisms of which we aotepos (for -ρων) are aware (except indeed the Resurrection- Body of our Lord, and that of those few who have been taken into glory, which, as belonging to the matter im question, are not alleged) which will bear comparison with bodies on earth. δόξα belongs to the ἐπουράνια more strictly than to the ἐπίγεια. In Luke ix. 26, we have ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ Kal Tod πατρὸς καὶ τών ἁγίων ἀγγέλων. 41.) This third analogy is suggested perhaps by δόξα just before. There is no allusion whatever here (as some have imagined,—even Chrys., C£cum., Theodoret, Calov., Estius, al.) to different degrees of glorification of the bodies of the blessed ; the introduction of such an idea confuses the whole analogical reason- ing: which is, that even various fountains ot light, so similar in its aspect and pro- perties, differ; the sun from the moon and the stars: the stars (and much more vividly would this be felt under the pure sky of the East than here) from one another : why not then a body here froma resurrection-body,—both bodies, but dif- ferent ? 42—44 ἃ.) Application of these analogies to the doctrine of the Resurrection. 42.) οὕτως, thus, © viz. in the entire diversity of that which is raised again from the former body. σπείρεται) “Cum posset dicere sepelitur, maluit dicere seritur, ut magis insisteret similitudini supra sumte de gra- no.” Grot. ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ] in ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 617 ’ , Vv > Vv ὃ ᾿ A r / 5, Ww ’ θ = / 5 / wae ; EYVELPETAL εν ὀξῃ OTTELPETAL εν adc ενξίᾷᾳ, EVELPETAL v= Luke ix. 31, 2 Gor. iii. 7, , / a , > ͵ a 5 * ἐν * δυνάμει" 411 σπείρεται σῶμα ¥ ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα ὅπ Pil. Ζ ΄ >” A y ͵ ” \z 1 Tim. iii. 16 πνευματικόν. εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα Y ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ * TVEU= only. ΤΡ. w= ch. 11.3 ματικόν. 48 δοὕτως καὶ γέγραπται »’Eyévero ὁ πρῶτος ref. (see . note.) 7 5. \ ᾽ \ a € f ? \ Rom. i. 4 reff. ἄνθρωπος ᾿Αδὰμ Yes ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδὰμ 5 itere dee. ch. ii. 14. James iii. 15. Jude 19 only +. z = here 4 times only. (ch. x. 3, 4 reff.) πὰ = Matt. ii, 5. Luke xxiv. 46. Acts xiii, 47 al. Ὁ Gen. ii. 7. constr., Acts v. 36 reff. 44. rec on εἰ, with D?3[-gr] KL rel syrr (Chr, 1 Thdrt Phot-cat, Jac-nisib,: ins ABCD! FN 17 latt copt eth arm Damase [Ambrst] Aug;altic) Bede. (ι is written above the line by &1(?)%.) [homeeotel in P k spec Chr-2-mss Euthal-ms 150 to 2nd πνευματικον. |—ree και bef 2nd ἐστιν, with KL rel &: txt ABCDFR 17 &e. [eth doubtful. ]—rec ins σωμα bef [2ud] πνευματικον, with KL rel syrr (copt) ath [Chr] Thdrt Phot-cat Jac-nisib,: om ABCDE® 17 latt arm [Damase Ainbrst Aug,iic |. (Conformation to the foregoing asser- tions: or perhaps εἰ overlooked from ἐστιν following. The 2nd σωμα was ὦ gloss.) 45. for ovrws και, καθως F fuld [demid(sicut et) tol(sicut entm)] arm[-usc Auguiic |. om av@pwros BK Did, Iren[-int,] (Orig-int,) [Ambr,(txtaic) Aug, |. a state of corruption,—in a state of in- corruptibility. 43. ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ, ἐν δόξῃ] in dishonour (τί γὰρ εἰδεχθέστερον νεκροῦ διαῤῥυέντος ; Chrys. Hom. xli. p. 890. Cf. Xen. Mem. i. 3. 59,---τῆς ψυχῆς ἐξελθούσης, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ οἰκειοτάτου ἀνθρώπου τὴν ταχίστην ἐξενέγκαντες adaviCovo.v),—in glory: regarding, as throughout this argu- meut (see on ver. 23), only the resurrec- tion of the just : see Phil. iii. 21. ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ] in weakness,—the character- a . . . . . istic of the lifeless body, which is relaxed and powerless. Chrys. understands ἀσθ. of its inability to resist corruption: De Wette would refer it tothe previous state of pain and disease: but it seems better to under- stand it of the powerlessness of the corpse, contrasted with ἐν δυν., in vigour, viz. the fresh and eternal energy of the new body free from disease and pain. “ That which Grot. adds : ‘cum sensibus multis, quos nunc non intelligimus,’ is very likely in itself ¢rwe, but is not implied in ἐν δυνάμει." Meyer. 44 ἃ. σῶμ. ux. | an animal body, of which the ψυχή, the animal soul, was the acting and informing power. This soul having departed out of it, does not do away with the correctness of the predicate: its whole organism which still remains when it is sown, is arranged to suit this predominance of the animal soul. σῶμα πνευματικόν) Theophyl., having explained σῶμα wuy.,—ev ᾧ ἡ ψυχὴ τὸ κῦρος καὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἔχει,--- proceeds πνευματικὸν δέ, τὸ τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος καταπλουτοῦν ἐνέργειαν, καὶ ὑπ’ ἐκείνου τὰ πάντα διοικούμενον. εἰ γὰρ καὶ νῦν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐνεργεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα, ἄλλ᾽ οὐχ οὕτως, οὐδὲ ἀεί. ἀφίπταται γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων. καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος δὲ παρ- ὄντος, ἣ ψυχὴ διοικεῖ τὸ σῶμα᾽ τότε δὲ διηνεκῶς παραμενεῖ τοῖς σώμασι τῶν δι- καίων τὸ πνεῦμα. But this is not quite enough : —for thus the body might remain as it is, sin only being removed: whereas it shall be no longer a body in which the ψυχή predominates to the subordination of the higher part, the πνεῦμα, but one in which the πνεῦμα, and that informed fully by the Spirit of God, shall predominate,— its organism being conformed not to an aniinal, but toa spiritual life: see on ch. vi. 13. Some understood πνευματικόν, ethe- rial, aery, κουφότερον καὶ λεπτότερον, καὶ οἷον καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀέρος ὀχεῖσθαι (Chrys. p.391), or as Origen, ἀερῶδες κ. αἰθέριον (see Theo- phyl.), but the other is certainly right. 44 b—49.] Reassertion and Con- Jjirmation of the existence of the spiritual body. 44 b. | lf there exists an animal body, there exists also a spiritual: i.e. it is no more wonderful a thing, that there should be a body fitted to the capacities and wants of man’s highest part, his spirit, than (which we seeto be the case) that there should be one fitted to the capacities and wants of his subordinate animal soul. The emphasis is both times on ἔστιν. 45.| Confirmation of this from Scripture. οὕτως, thus, viz. in accordance with what has been just said. The citation extends only to the words ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρ. eis ψυχ. ζῶσαν: πρῶτος and ᾿Αδάμ are supplied, as are also the concluding words, in which lies the real confirmation. The words quoted serve therefore rather for the illustration of man being a ψυχή, than for a proof of the existence of the spiritual body. ἐγένετο] by his creation,—by means of God breathing into him the breath of life. eis Ψ. Lac. | becoming thereby a σῶμα ψυχικόν. ὁ ἔσχ. ᾿Αδάμ.) This expression was well known among the Jews as indicating the Messiah. The Rabbinical work Neve Shalom ix. 9 (Schéttgen),says: “Adamus postreimus est Messias:” see other instances in Schéttg. ad loc. ἔσχατος, as being the last HEAD of humanity,—to be manifested in the last times: or merely in contrast to the 618 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOTS A. ἜΘ ,’ ~ lal al » ’ > A % c ver. 36. Deis πνεῦμα “ ζωοποιοῦν. 4ὃ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρῶτον TO * πνευ- Rom, iv. 17 δι , , Ἢ Ἵ «πῆι times) ματικόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἡ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ * πνευματικόν. 1ere ( 5 aoe ΕἸ ” > ἴὰ ΕΝ. © ΄ ewer, Ἢ 0 πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς ἃ χοῖκός, ὁ δεύτερος f Kom. xiii. 4 ” 3 > ms 48 e ε ὰ νᾶ a ᾿ το ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. οἷος ὁ “yoikos, τοιοῦτοι καὶ g Rom. viii, 29 es , > 3 > , - \ pee 286. οἱ 4 χοϊκοί, καὶ οἷος ὁ “επουρανιος, TOLOUTOL και see ch. 1. 12. e " ΄ Ἂ 40 \ Ἢ f > , 7 . g > ’ a i= Matt.xvi. © E7TOUPAVLOL καὶ καθὼς εφορέσαμεν τὴν ϑείκονα τοῦ i. Eph vie - Lal ‘ , wn 5 / 12. Hebi, ἃ γρϊκοῦ, ᾿φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν ὅ εἰκόνα τοῦ “ ἐπουρανίου. v. 18. a ΄ - . \ a oe » xen ννϑ,10. 202 τρῦτο δέ ἢ φημι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι ' σὰρξ καὶ | αἷμα * βασι- reff. 46. adda D!'. 47. aft o πρωτος ανθρωπος add adau C!. rec ins o κυριος bef εξ ovp. (gloss), with A D[-gr?]3 KLPN3 rel syrr goth [arm Hip-ed,] Orig, Chr, [Bas, Euthal-ins] Cyr[- p,(but mss and the old syr and lat translations vary) | Thdrt Ps-Ath, Damase Til (Ec Tert, Maximin, (the insertion is ascribed to Marcion by Tert and in Dial): ow BCD!FR?! 17 latt copt eth arm{-marg] Orig,(and int,) Hip-ms, [Petr,] Ath, Nys, Naz, Cyr[-p,(but see above) Ps-Ath ] ἐξ ὰ τέο -in- Epiph, Photin Tert, Cy prespe fil [Ambr, Ambrst]. aft ovpavov add ὦ ουρανιος F vulg{-clem am? eth arin marg Bas, ς οι (Ps-Ath,)] Orig-int, [Cypr-ms, Ambr, Ambrst ]}. 48. att τοιουτοι ins ουτοι (Οὐ. vary : ins, ] ει: om Orig-int, Cypr,.] om 1st και F(not F-lat) [am!] Iren-int,[but mss for ἐπουρ., ovpavios and ουρανιοι DIF, 49. [for lst και, apa K(and G-marg) Aug φορεσωμεν (from a desire (as Chrys below) to turn what is really a physical assertion into an ethical exhortation : see note at Rom ν. 1) ACDFKLP® [17(sic)] rel latt copt goth Thdot,[not ed Migne] Orig,!-c, |(-int,) Caes, [Nys,] Mac, Meth( pref iva) ΟΠ γεχρε(τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, ἄριστα πράξωμεν. .. . Iren-int, Tertyexpr Cy prs συμβουλευτικῶς eisdyer τὸν λόγον) Kpiph, Ps-Ath, Damase Hil, [Ambratic Aubrst ] Jer: txt Bae g {eth(Tischdf)] arm Thdrterpr(7d yap φορέσομεν Apt Oe Tine οὐ παραινετικῶς εἴρηκεν) Thlexpr Ccexpr- 50. for δε, yap 1) ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat| Iren{-int, ] Tert,. first. εἰς tv. ζἕωοπ.7ὔ scil. ἐγένετο---- became a quickening (life - bestowing) spirit. When? ‘This has been variously answered: see De Wette and Meyer. ‘The principal periods selected are his Jncarna- tion, his Resurrection, and his Ascension. But it seems to me that the question is not one to be pressed: in the union of the two natures, the second Adam was consti- tuted a life-bestowing Spirit, and is such now in heaven, yet having the resurrec- tion-body. The whole complex of his suf- fering and triumphant state seems to be embraced in these words. That His re- surrection-state alone is not intended, is evident from ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ver. 47. He was a πνεῦμα ζωοποιυῦν, even while in the σῶμα ψυχικόν; and is still such in the σῶμα πνευματικόν. The life implied in (wo- ποιοῦν. is the resurrection-life: see John v. 21, 28; Rom. viii. 11. 46.) But in the natural order, that which is animal pr cedes that which is spiritual (τὸ ψυχ., τὸ πνευμ., not σῶμα, but abstract aud general): as in ver. 45, 6 πρῶτο---ὁ & éoxa- TOS. 47.) So exactly in Gen. ii. 7. God made man χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ Tis γῆς. Meyer has some excellent remarks here, with which I entirely agree :—“ Since the body of Adam is thus characterized as a ψυχικὸν σῶμα, as ver. 45, and psychical organism involves mortality (ver. 44), it is clear that Paul treats of Adam not as created exempt from death : in strict ac- cordance with Gen. ii. 7; 1.19. Nor does this militate against his teaching that death came into the world through sin, Rom. v. 12. For had our first parents not sinned, they would have remained in Paradise, and would, by the use of the Tree of Life, which God had not forbidden them (Gen. ii. 16, 17), have become immortal (Gen. iii. 22). But they were driven ont of Paradise, ere yet they had tasted of this tree (Gen. iii. 22), and so, according to the record in Genesis also, Death came into the world by sin.” See also some striking remarks on the verse in Genesis in Stier, ‘Andeutungen fiir glaiibiges Schriftver- stindniss,’ pp. 202, 3. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ] either, in this glorified Body, at his coming,—as Meyer: or, in his whole Per- sonality (De W.) as the God-man: this latter seems more probable from John iii. 13, where 6 vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is desig- nated as 6 ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς. 48.) ὁ χοϊκός. Adam ; ot x., his posterity on earth: ὃ ἔπουρ., Christ; ot éw., His risen people. See, as admirably illustrating this verse, Phil. iii. 20, 21. 49.] For the reason of keeping φορέσομεν, see var. readd. As we (Christians) bore in this life ; the time imagined is when this life is past, and the resurrection instant... ABCDP KLrPs a vbedef gbkiin 017. 47 M σαλ- πισει... 4.6—52. ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOTS A. 619 1 ver. 42 reff. ᾿ ᾿ J 2 3 m Rom. δ 51 ἐδοὺ μυστήριον ὑμῖν, τοι α, xii 11. Rum. x1. 25. | Dan. ii. 18 al λείαν θεοῦ * κληρονομῆσαι od δύνανται, οὐδὲ ἡ 'POopa 2 m ad@ ᾿ k Ἂ τὴν ' ἀφθαρσίαν * κληρονομεῖ. λέγω. πάντες οὐ ο κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ Ρ ἀλλαγη- , me ’ ᾽ , > ¢€ Ayes a - ΄ στε. σόμεθα, © ἐν 4 ἀτόμῳ, ἐν "ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ » -- ον. ν. 89 ς / ΓΝ: , ΄ \ e a ee θ / p herebis. Acts σαλπιγγι' “oaATicEL γάρ, καὶ οἱ νεκροὺ " ἐγερθησονταν vi.14. Rom. Ps. ον. 20). Gal. iv. 20, Heb. i. 12 (from Ps. ci. 26) only. Lev. xxvii. 33. i. 23 (from r here only+. Eur. Iph. Taur. 885. {-πέζειν, James i. 6.) q here ou'y +, sch. xiv. 8 reff. 1 Thess. iv. 16. t Matt. vi. 2. Rev. vill. 6, &c. (6 times.) ix. 1,13. x. 7. x1. 15 only. Num. x. 3—8. u ver. 4, for κληρονομῆσαι ov δυνανται, ov KAnpovouncovow (see ch vi. 9, Gal ν. 21) F 42 copt Mace, Chr{and 2-mss] Iren[-int,} Orig-int, Tert,—éuvara: BPX k. κληρονομήσει (see as above) C1D'F latt[(not am!) syrr] copt (Meth,). 51. ins οἱ bef παντες, twice, A; but 2nd οἱ corrd into ov Al. rec aft παντες ins μὲν (on acct of the δε following), with AIC? 1)3[-gr] KLPR rel vulg syr copt Dial, Orthod, Cyr, [Ephr, Nys, Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase] Cees, Orig-int, Tert,: wey ovy A? (appy) F [17(‘Tischdf) |: δὲ k: om B(CP!) D}(and lat) Syr eth [arm(Tischdf) | Orig, (-int,) Jer(on the testimony of the greek mss: for after stating that the lat mss rea omnes quidem resurgemus, he says all the greek have either omnes dormiemus or non omnes dormiemus) Jac-nisib,. for κυιμηθησομεθα, αναστησομεθα D}(and lat) vulg(and F-lat) arm-marg lat-mss-mentioned-by-Jer-Aug-Pel-Gennad Jac-nisib, Hil, Ambr Aug. κοιμηθησομεθα bef ov (thus reading πάντες (μὲν) κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα) A'C(D!)FR 17 and greek-inss-mentioned-by-[ Max-conf ]-Jer-Aug- Pel, also vulg eth[{-rom] arm Orig,(and int,) Did[-in-Jer]: ov (? ovv) kom. ov A, the Ist ov ᾿ is written over the line in small letters Αἱ : txt B D?{appy 73 Κα ΠΡ rel and greek-mss- mentioned-by-[ Max-conf ]-Jer-Acac- Did-Pel, also syrr copt goth zth-pl [spec] Thdot Orig,'int,: also [once] more in Jer) Thdor-heracl Diod Apollin(these three in Jer) Dial-trin, Tit, Nys, Cas, Chr, [Cyr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Andr,; Damase Th] (ἔς Tert Jer,. (Lhevariation has prob arisen from the apparent difficulty of reconciling παντες (μεν) ov kom. with the fact that St. Paul and his readers had all died. Hence the negative particle was transferred to the other clause, to the detriment of the sense.) 52. ins ws bef ev pun ΟἹ. for pin, porn D'F 67? Diall-ms, Nys,] and greek- mss-mentioned-by-Jer(pirn s. porn utrumque enim legitur, et nostri interpretati sunt in itu [latt Ambrst], 5. in motu ['Tertaiic]). for εγερθ., αναστησονται ADFP Orig, Chr, Damasc Thl-marg: txt BCKLMX rel Orig, Dial, Chrna, Cyr[-p] Thdrt Cosm,. 50—54.] The necessity of the change of the animal body into the spiritual, in order to inherit God’s kingdom. The manner of that change prophetically de- scribed: and the abolition of Death in victory consequent on it. δέ φ., see reff. It calls attention to some- thing to be observed, and liable to be overlooked. Not only is the change of body possible, and according to natural and spiritual analogies,—but it is NECES- SARY. σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα] = σῶμα ψυχικόν, the present organism of the body, calculated for the wants of the animal soul. τὴν θνητὴν φύσιν καλεῖ" ἀδύνατον δὲ ταύτην ἔτι θνητὴν οὖσαν τῆς ἐπουρανίου βασιλείας τυχεῖν. Theodoret. ἡ φθορὰ. . .. τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν, the abstracts, representing the impossi- bility of the φθαρτόν inheriting the ἄφθαρ- τον as one grounded in these qualities. κληρονομεῖ, pres., sets forth the absolute impossibility in the nature of things. 51.] He proceeds to reveal to them something of the process of the change at the resurrection-day. This he does under the name of a μυστήριον, a hidden doctrine (see reff., especially Rom.). 80.) τοῦτο ΄ πάντες ov κοιμ.} See var. readd. Meyer maintains that the only ren- dering of the words which is philologi- cally allowable (the ordinary one, re- garding πάντες (μὲν) ov as = οὐ πάντες (uév),—we shall not all sleep, being inad- missible, here and in other instances where it has been attempted, see Winer, edn. 6, § 26. 1), is this, ‘we all (viz. as in 1 Thess. iv. 15, ἡμεῖς of ζῶντες of περι- λειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν Tov κυρίου, —in which number the Apostle firmly believed that he himself should be, see 2 Cor. v. 1 ff. and notes) shall not sleep, but shall all be changed.” But we may observe that this would commit the Apos- tle to the extent of believing that not one Christian would die before the παρ- ovola;—and that it is besides not ne- cessary, for the emphasis is both times on mdytes—‘ (All of us) shall not sleep, but (all of us) shall be changed:’ i.e. ‘the sleep of death cannot be predicated of (all of us), but the resnrrection-change ean.” See also Winer, ὃ 61. 5 ἢ, -and Moulton’s note, p. 695. 52.) ἐν ἀτόμῳ, in a point of time absolutely indivisible, ἐν ῥιπήματι, Hesych. "ἐν τῇ ἐσχ. 620 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. XV. 53—58. » “ , an A ‘adaptor, Kal ἡμεῖς P ἀλλαγησόμεθα. 3 δεῖ yap τὸ ἡ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο * ἐνδύσασθαι '' ἀφθαροίαν καὶ τὸ ¥ θνητὸν v Rom. i. 23 reff. w Acts iv. * Kom a τοῦτο * ἐνδύσασθαι “ ἀθανασίαν. 51 ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἡ φθαρτὸν : a aunt τοῦτο " ἐνδύσηται Ὁ ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ 7 θνητὸν τοῦτο Σέξην yRoanis * ἐνδύσηται ἀθανασίαν, τότε "γενήσεται ὁ λόγος ὁ ὑδπαὺς εἶξε ‘bis, ας γεγραμμένος, » Κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος " εἰς “4 νῖκος. 55 [lov k 1m only +. Wisd- σου, θάνατε, TO © κέντρον; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, TO δ νῖκος ; = Matt. v. 18. =p \ \ r / e as ΄ a “Mark xi 33.” 58-79 δὲ ὃ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς 1 θανα- b Isa. xxv. 8 Tov .. id / ς ΄ ὲ 57 A A θ - τῇ , a ὃ ὃ / e a“ Ξ: Heb..not quapTlas Ο νομος᾽ 9! τῷ δέ θεῳ * χάρις τῷ OLOOVTL ἡμίν ΑΒ DF LXX, but ra 4 ᾽ ἐ ki M Kat. occ. there) — 2 Cor. ‘ii. 7.) v. 4 (Matt. xxiii. 24. Heb. xi. 29. 1 Pet. v.8. Rev. xii. 16) only. c Matt. “Ὁ b xii. 20 only. 2 Kings ii. 26. Job xxsvi. 7. d as above (c). here 3ce only. ehere is, VNabe Acts xxvi. 14. Rev. ix. 10 only. Hosea xiii. 14. f = Rom. vi. 17 reff. te μη a 53. [for lst τουτο, τουτον P k. | om 2nd tovro ΕΓ μοῦ F-lat]. ins τὴν bef’ ὁ i7. 47 abavaciay Ip. 54. om to φθαρτ. Tour. evd. αφθ. και (i.e To φθαρτ. to το θνητ.) C'TyMN1(in supply- ing the omission X3 has written καὶ to, To being superfluous) 64. 71 vulg copt goth eth arm Mcion-e, Ath{-4-mss,] Iren-int,(citing from oportet enim, ver 53, to victoria tua, ver 55) Hil, Ambrst Aug, Fulg Oros Bede.—in A arm, To $8. to αφθαρσ. is put aft το θν. του. evd. abavag.—om k. To Ov. Tov. evd. αθαν. D'(supplied in D-lat, a prima manu) 1. Orig, : om αθανασ. to abavac. F, ins τὴν bef αθανασιαν Al, 17 also bet αφθαρσ. }. 55. transp vices and κεντρὸν (see LXX) BCI)MN? 17 vulg copt eth[-rom] arm{-zob ] Orig,(-int,) Eus, Ath, Did, Cyr-jer, Bas-sel, [Euthal-msj Damase, Iren-int, Tert, Ambr’ sepe Ambrst] Jer: txt A7 DF K LPR rel syrr_ goth ath-pl [arm-mss] Orig,(and’ int,) Eus, Ath, Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt Euther{-in-Thdrt] Iren-int, Tert, Cypr, Hil,.—om που σου θ. το νικ. A}.—(veikos, here and in vv. 54, 57 (confusion between εἰ and 1 as constantly elsw) BD1I,(& ver 57) τὰ, confentio 'Tert,[ victoria vel contentio,: Aug varies }.) rec for 2nd θανατε, adn (so LXX), with A? D3[-gr](appy) KLM PN? rel syrr goth [eth-pl arm] Orig, Ath, [Did, Bas, Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt] Euther,: txt BC D'[and lat] ΕἸ δὲ! vulg copt eth-rom Eus, lren-int, [Orig-int,] Tert, Cypr, Hil, Ainbrsepe AUZsepe- 56 ins ἐστιν bef ἡ auapr. A. 57. for διδοντι, δοντι D a Ὁ ἃ 1 ο [syrr(not syr-mg) ] Ath-3-mss Chr, Ge. ὅταν δέ. &c. isa repetition, in a triumphant spirit, of the description of the glorious change. γενήσεται shall come to pass—really de. The citation is from σάλπ. at (in, as part of the events of) the last trump2t-blowing. The word écx. niust obviously not be refined upon as some (τινές in Theophyl.—and Olsh.) have done, identifying it with the seventh trum- pet of the Apocalypse ;—nor pressed too closely as if there were necessarily no trump after it,—but is the trump at the time of the end, the last trump, in a wide and popular sense. See ref. 1 Thess. σαλπίσει} impersonal, —6é σαλπιγκτής, scil. So Od. φ. 142, ἀρξάμενοι τοῦ χώρου ὅθεν τέ περ οἰνοχοεύει (scil. ὁ oivdxoos) : Herod. ii. 47, ἐπεὰν θύσῃ : Xen. Anab. i. 2.17, ἐπεὶ ἐσάλπιγξε : ili. 4. 36, ἐκήρυξε : —vi. 5. 25, ἕως σημαίνοι τῇ σάλπιγγι. Kiilbner, § 414. 2. σαλπίσω for σαλ- πίγξω is reprobated by the grammarians: see Wetst. ἡμεῖς. see above [on ver. 511. 53.] Confirmation of καὶ ἡμ. ἀλλαγ., by a re-statement of the necessity of putting on incorruptibility and immor- tality. τὸ $0. τοῦτο... τὸ Ov. τοῦτο] this, indicating his own body. ἐνδύσασ- Gar—see note on the force of the aor. as indicating that which is momentary, on ver. 34, Compare on the figure of put- ting on, 2 Cor. v. 3 and notes. 54. | the Heb. with this difference, that the active, ‘He (Jehovah) abolishes,’ ya, is made passive, and my3), ‘for ever,’ is ren- dered (as elsewhere by the LXX, e. g. ref. 2 Kings, but not here) eis vixos. eis v. ‘so as to result in victory. Wetst. quotes from the Rabbis, ‘In diebus ejus (Messie) Deus S. B. deglutiet mortem.’ 55.] TRIUMPHANT EXCLAMATION of the Apostle realizing in his mind that glorious time: expressed nearly in the terms of the prophetic announcement of Hosea,—7od ἡ δίκη σου, θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου, ἅδη ; The figure of death as a venomous beast is natural, from the serpent, Gen. iii, Num. xxi. The souls in Hades being freed by the resurrection, Death’s victory is gone: sin being abolished by the change of the animal body (the source of sin) to the spiritual, his sting is powerless. For a discussion of the quotation, see Stanley’s note. 56.| See above: and compare Rom. v. 12, and vii. 57.] For this blessed con- eR? Be +0 4 haderdot μου " ἀγαπητοί, ‘ ἑδραῖοι γίνεσθε, * ἀμετακίνητοι, ’ - / “ ΄ ’ / Ἰ περισσεύοντες ἐν τῷ ™ ἔργῳ τοῦ ™ κυρίου πάντοτε, εἰδότες ιν , id Lal lj / ὅτι 0" κόπος ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ° κενὸς ἐν κυρίῳ. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS A. ἴω ὔ a ,’ A Lal νῖκος διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ. 621 58 8 ὥςτε, 6 = chv.8 h ee, Paul, here only. James i. 16, 19. ii. 5 only. (Eph. vi. 21. Col. i749. Philem. 16. 2 Pet. iii. 15.) XVI. 1 Περὶ δὲ τῆς Ρ λογίας τῆς “ εἰς τοὺς ᾿ ἁγίους, τὰν sg ὥςπερ * διέταξα ταῖς peas THS Γαλατίας, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιήσατε. “ ἃ κατὰ " μίαν *rap " ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω Y θησαυρίζων ὅ τι ἂν * εὐοδῶται, ἵνα iv. 16 [8 om. vv. θ---181. o ver. 10 reff. r Acts ix. 13 reff. Rom. xv. 26. m ch, xvi. 10. p here bis only +. Col. i. 23 only +. Ps. lvi. 8 Symm. k here only 4. "σαββάτου ἕκαστος ὑμῶν Rom. ἈΝ Phil. i. 26. 1 Thess. iv. 10 4]. Tobit (Phil. ii. 30.) n 2 Cor. vi. 5 reff. = Rom. xv. 26. 2 Cor. viii. 4. ix. 13. sch. vii. 17. Acts xviii. 2. L.P., exc. Matt. xi. 1. 3 Kinesx:, 18. Dan. i. 5 Theod. t plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. u = Acts ii. 46 al. v Mark xvi. 2. Luke xxiv.1. John xx.1,19. Acts xx. 7. w = Luke xviii. 12. Mark xvi, 9. =x see Luke xxiv. 12, y Matt. vi. 19,20. Luke xii. 21. Rom. ii.5. 2 Cor. xii. 14. James νυ. 3. 2 Pet. iii. 7 only. 4 Kings xx. 17. 3, 23. iro. xp. bef τ. κυρ. nu. M. 58. ins και bef αμετακινητοι A [vulg F-lat Syr eth] Ambrst. ov ἐστιν bef v Kom. vuwy Εἰ not F-lat }. om Tov I}. z Rom. i. 10 (reff.). 3 John 2 (bis) only. Gen. xxxix, for epyw, οἰκω Ῥ, CuHap. XVI. 2. rec σαββατων, with KIL.MN? rel copt goth [arm Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc: σαββατω Xl meer: txt ABCDFI,P &-eorr! 17 latt [syrr] Chr,. BI,M.—67’ ἂν n(and so vv. 3 ms | Damase. Beye) 47 summation of victory over death, he breaks out in thanks to God, who gives it to us (present, as being certain) through our Lord Jesus Christ (the Name in full, as befits the solemnity and majesty of the thanks- giving). 58.] Conclusion of the whole up an earnest exhortation. ὥςτε] ‘que cum ita sint, —seeing that the victory is sure. ἕδρ., apetaxiv. | a climax (Mey.);—in reference, viz. to the doubt which is attempted to be raised among you on this matter. ἐν TO ἔργῳ τοῦ κυρ.] The work of the Lord is the Chris- tian life, with its active and passive duties and graces,—the bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit. εἰδότες] Knowing (as you do—being convinced by what has been said), that your labour (bestowed on the ἔργ. τοῦ Kup.) is not vain (which it would be, were there no resurrection: see reff.) in the Lord. These last words cannot belong to 6 κόπος ὕμ., nor very well to οὐκ ἔστι κενός (as Meyer), but are best taken with the whole sentence, your labour is not in vain: so ch. ix. 1. CuaP. XVI.] VARIOUS DIRECTIONS AND ARRANGEMENTS (1—18). SaLurarions (19, 20). AUTOGRAPH CONCLUSION AND BENEDICTION (21—24), 1—4.] Di- rections respecting the collection and transmission of alms for the poor saints at Jerusalem. 1.) The construction isas inch. vii. 1; viii. 1; xii. 1;—the περὶ de... rather serves to introduce the new subject than to form any constructional part of the sentence. Similarly in ver. 12. λογίας λογία, συλλογή, Hesych. λογίαν, τὴν συλλογὴν τῶν χρημάτων καλεῖ, Theodoret (Wetst.). The word is €av εὐοδωθη ACI,KM &*- 5007) [ Euthal- said in the Lexx. not to be found in classic writers. εἰς τ. ay. | = es TOUS πτωχοὺς T. ἁγίων τῶν ἐν Ἵερουσα- Anu, ref. Rom. See also 2 Cor. viii. 1 ff.; ix. 1 ff: and on the poverty of the church at Jerusalem, note on Acts ii. 44. That poverty was no doubt in- creased by the continual troubles with which Jerusalem was harassed in this, the distressful close of the Jewish national his- tory. See other causes in Stanley. That the mother church of Christendom should be thus, in its need, sustained by the daughter churches, was natural; and it is at the same time an affecting circumstance, to find him the most anxious to collect and bear to them this contribution, whose for- mer persecuting zeal had doubtless (see Acts xxvi. 10) made not a few of those saints widows and orphans. ὥςπερ διέτ.] We do not find any such order in the Epistle to the Galatians: ch. ii. 10 there being merelyincidental. It had probably been given during his journey among them Acts xviii. 28,—or perhaps by message (9) from Ephesus. Notas E. V., ‘as I have given order, but as I gave order. He refers to the occasion, whatever it was, when that order was given. Bengel re- marks: “ Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis, Corinthiorum exemplum Macedonibus, Co- rinthiorum et Macedonum Romanis pro- ponit. 2Cor.ix.2. Rom. xv. 26. Magna exemplorum vis.” 2.) μίαν oafB.] For this Hebraism, and σαβ. in the sin- gular, signifying week, see reff. On the observance of the first day of the week, see notes, Acts xx. 7, and Rom. xiv. 5. Here there is no mention of their assembling, 622 a absol., Acts xvii. 10 re b = Rom. xiv. 22 reff. c = Rom. ii. 27. d Acts xix. 12 reff. e= τ Cor. viii. 6,7, 19. f seal constr., σονται. here only. Ε are xxi. h διέλθω: πέμψω h Acts xiii. 6 k τ ] OES a ν ce ff. eh te xii, Ττύχον "παραμενω ἢ ™ καὶ 56. Johni. 1,2. Gal.i. 18. 1 John i. 2. see ver. 10. ch. ii. 3. 1 Phil. i. 25. Heb. vii. 23. Jamesi. 25 only. Gen. xliv. 33. Tit. iii. 12 only t. for εαν, av BD'F. 12. xxviii. 11. 3. [omous K.] ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ A. a \ ἃ ἀπενεγκεῖν τὴν XVI. » , U Ὁ Ν μή, ὅταν ἔλθω, τότε P λογίαι γίνωνται" 3 ὅταν δὲ ὃ παρα- , r ‘ , ’ a , γένωμαι, οὺς ἐὰν ὃ δοκιμάσητε, ° δι’ ἐπιστολῶν τούτους ὁ χάριν ὑμῶν εἰς Ἱἱερουσαλήμ' ’ ‘ » “- ᾽ Ν \ ’ 4 ἐὰν δὲ faEvov ἢ ὃ τοῦ κἀμὲ πορεύεσθαι, σὺν ἐμοὶ πορεύ- 3 / \ \ ¢. lal A / 5 ἐλεύσομαι δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὅταν Μακεδονίαν Μακεδονίαν γὰρ ἢ διέρχομαι'" Η \ id a Sigpos ὑμᾶς δὲ 4 e al " παραχειμάσω, iva ὑμεῖς με k here only. Xen. Anab. vy, 9. 20, (see ch. xiv. 10.) m ch. ix. 8 reff. n Acts xxvii. ιεροσολυμα A. 4. rec ἡ bef αξιον, with D F{-gr] KLN! rel syr (goth) [arm Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt Damase: txt A(nv) BCI,MPX* a m 17 [latt( not G-lat) Syr copt]. 5. for yap, δε ΕἾ -gr}|(uot G) m. 6. for a y(ap) Ip. (sic)] P om ἡ F(not F-lat) 2. Katauevw BM 672 om καὶ BM 3. 116 (Syr) Chr-2-mss. : παραπομεινω F.—mapau. bef τυχίων for wa, εἰ un ΕΓ μοῦ F-lat} D-lat.—iva εἰ καὶ παραχ. D)[-gr]. which we have in Acts xx. 7, but a plain indication that the day was already consi- dered as a special one, and one more than others fitting for the performance of a reli- gious duty. map ἑαυτῷ 719. | let each of you lay up at home (reff. ) in store whatsoever he may by prosperity have acquired (lit. ‘whatsoever he may be pros- pered in:’ i.e. the pecuniary result of any prosperous adventure, or dispensation of Providence): not, as Bengel, al.: ‘quod commodum sit,—a meaning which the word will not bear. tva py... | that there may not, when I come, THEN be collections to be made. His time would be better employed in imparting to thema spiritual benefit, than in urging them to and superintencing this duty. 3. | * Vide quomodo vir tantus nullam suspi- cioni rimam aperire voluerit.” Grot. δι᾿ ἐπιστολῶν cannot belong to δοκιμά- σητε (as Beza, Calv., Wetst., E. V.,—for what need of letters from them ὅταν παραγένωμαι, or before his coming, if the person recommended were not to be sent off before his arrival ?), but is emphati- cally pretixed, as the safe and proper way of giving credentials to those sent ;— τούτους méuWw,—the alternative which follows, of himself accompanying them, being already in the miud of the Apostle. ἐπιστολών, plur.,—not of the cate- gory merely, meaning one Jdetter,—but meaning, either that each should have his letter of credentials,—or more pro- bably, that Paul would give them letters to several persons in Jerusalem. Meyer well remarks: “ Hence we see how common in Paul’s practice was the writ- ing of Epistles. Who knows how many private letters of his, not addressed to churches have been lost ? The only letter of the kind which remains to us (except the Pastoral Epistles), viz. that to Phile- mon, owes its preservation perhaps to the mere circumstance, that it is at the same time addressed to the church in the house of Philemon. See ver.2.” χάριν] see reff. Meyer compares Plato, Det. p. 113, E: χάρις, εὐεργεσία ἑκούσιος. 4.) But if it (the occasion,—dependent on the magnitude of your collection) be wor- thy of my also taking the journey (i.e. if your collection be large enough to war- rant an apostolic mission in order to carry it,— not said for security, —nor to procure himself a fair reception at Jerusalem,—but with a sense of the dignity of an apostolic mission: “ justa eestimatio sui non est su- perbia,” Bengel), they shall go in my company (σὺν ἐμοὶ π. contrast to δι᾽ ém- στολῶν πέμψω, and observing the same order). This did apparently take place, see Acts xx. 4 ff 5—9.] Taking up ὅταν παραγένωμαι, he announces his plan of visiting them. 5.| This plan was a change from his for- mer intention, which had been (see 2 Cor. i 15. 16, and note), to pass through them to Macedonia, and again return to them JSrom Macedonia, and thence to Judea. This he had apparently announced to them in the lost Epistle alluded to ch. v. 9 (or in some other), and he now tacitly drops this scheme, and announces another. For this he was charged (2 Cor. i. 17 ff.) with levity of purpose :—ut his real motive was, lenity towards them, that he might not come to them in sorrow and severity (2 Cor. i. 23; ii. 1). The seeond plan he adhered to: we find him already in Macedonia when 2 Cor. was written (2 Cor. ii. 13; viii. 1; ix. 2, 4), and on his way to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 14; xiii. 1);-—and in Acts xx. 1, 2, the journey is briefly narrated. Maxed. γ. διέρχ. is not parenthetical, but es ABCDF 1,KLM PR abe defgh kilmn o 17, 47 τ} ΠΡῸΣ KOPIN@IOYS A. 623 δ 7 eo ΄, on θ \ ΜΟΙ “- προπέμψητε οὗ ἐὰν πορεύωμαι. οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἄρτι ο Acts αν. 8 , Qn ’ / \ 7 \ , -" ΠῚ Ν ξ ὃ, ἐν Ῥ παρόδῳ ἰδεῖν" ἐλπίζω γὰρ χρόνον τινὰ 4 ἐπιμεῖναι ἱ πρὸς ἢ Gen. rxsviii > ae 2. e 7 r2 7 8 q ae a δὲ , Ἐ , 14. Polyb. v. ὑμᾶς, ἐὰν ὁ κύριος " ἐπιτρέψη. ἐπιμενῶ δὲ ἐν Edéow ies osce a a AL. ΄ ΄ dee Gd e / ware ri veo ἕως τῆς "πεντηκοστῆς" 9 θύρα yap μοι ἃ ἀνέῳγεν μεγάλη * Aci.) ev Ty. ή ᾿ ; Esth. ABCDF Kat ° ἐνεργής, καὶ “ ἀντικείμενοι πολλοί. ὩΣ KLMPR vi. 3. ix. 14. s Acts ii. 1 reff. avede 9 Ἐὰν δὲ ἔλθη Τιμόθεος, * βλέπετε ἵνα Y ἀφόβως νοι... feb Kl ty Ζ Nk ryt NS ΠΑΝ a Se ee ae u 2 Cor. vi. 11. mnoi7, ~ YEVNTAL TT pos υμαᾶς TO yap Epyov Κυρίου ἐργάζεται " Philem. 6. 47 ΄ > yi 1] , > πο ο 7 ΄, ο 7 eb. iv. 12 ws κἀγώ: 11 μήτις οὖν αὐτὸν “ ἐξουθενήσῃ, ° προπέμψατε only. 23.2. (-yetv, -γημα, ch. xii.6. ~yeta, Eph. i. 19.) w Luke xiii. 17. xxi. 15. Gal. v.17. Phil. i. 28. 2 Thess. ii.4. 1 Tim.i.10. v. 14 only. L.P. Zech. iii. 1. x w. ἕνα, Col. iv. 17 only. (see 2John 8.) w. πῶς, Luke viii. 18. ch. iii. 10. Eph. v. 15. y Luke i. 74. Phil. i. 14. Jude 12 only. Prov. i. 33, Wisd. xvii. 4 BN Ald. (-Bos, AC compl.) only. z ch. ii. 3 reff. ach, xv. 58. b Acts xiii. 41 reff. c = Rom. xiv. 3 reff. for εαν, αν D!F, πορευσομαι P; -cwuat Ὁ] o [-ομαι LM ἐκ 47]. 7. tor Ist yap, δε Ty: om Syr. rec (for 2nd yap) δε, with KL rel syr [eth] Thdrt: txt ABCDFI,MPR® 17 latt Syr copt goth Chr, Damase [Euthal-ms Ambrst]. rec επιτρεπη (the force of the aor not being perceived: see note), with DFK rel [Thdrt Damasc, -re: Le f k?]: txt ABCI,M P(-fer) δὲ dm 17 Chr, Thi-mss, permiserit latt. 8. om ev F(not G). 9. om καὶ αντ. πολ. L. 10. opoBws Β! : apoBos P 47. rec kat eyw, with DF rel Orig{-c], Chr,(kadws k. ey.) : eyw, omg και, BM 672: txt ACKI-PR n 17 Thdrt Damase. 11. om ovy D}(and lat) ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat] goth arm Ambrst. is opposed (by δέ) to παραμενῶ. The pres. imnplies, as in Εἰ. V., his now matured plan,—not, as in the erroneous subscrip- tion of the Epistle, that he was on his way through Macedonia, when he wrote the word. 6. παραμενῶ) This, of which he speaks uncertainly, was accomplished ; he spent (Acts xx. 3) three months, and tliose (ib. ver. 6) the three winter months, in Greece (at Corinth). ὑμεῖς, Meyer justly remarks, is emphatic, and conveys an affectionate preference, in his present plan, for them. ov, with a verb of motion. The account of this is that the ideas of motion and rest are both involved in the verb: rest, when the motion is ac- complished. So Luke x.1 ;—Soph. Trach. 40, κεῖνος δ᾽ ὅπου βέβηκεν οὐδεὶς οἶδε :— Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 25, ὅπου βουληθεῖεν ἐξελθεῖν. See Kiihner, ὃ 623, Anm. 2. Whither he should go from Corinth, was as yet uncertain, see ver. 4. 7: For Iam not willing, this time to see you in pass- ing. There isa slight, but a very slight, reference to his change of purpose (see above) ; but we must not take ἄρτι with θέλω (which Meyer charges Neander with doing, but clearly in error, see Pfl. u. Leit. p- 415 note): rather the ἄρτι refers to the occasion, the news from ‘them of Chloe,’ which had made it advisable that he should not now pay them a mere passing visit. yap | ground of οὐ θέλω---αῦ not the ulti- mate one, see above. ἐπιτρέψῃ | shall have permitted me, i.e. ‘if it shall so turn out, in the Lord’s direction of my work, that I shall then find my way open to do So.” 8,9.] His present plan regarding his stay in Ephesus (where he was writ- ing). τ. wevtTynk.| viz. that next coming. This probably happened so, or nearly so, notwithstanding the tumult of Acts xix.: for he already (see there vv. 21, 22) was meditating his departure, and had sent on two of his company, when the tumult occurred. θύρα, see reff.: an opportunity of action. μεγάλη refers to the extent of the action thus opened before him: évepyys, to its requirements : neither of them (though μεγάλη may be referred to θύρα) properly agreeing with the figure, but both with the reality. Meyer compares Plato, Pheedr. p. 245, a: μουσῶν ἐπὶ ποιητικὰς θύρας ἀφίκηται. ἀντικ. πολλ.] See Acts xix. 9, 23 ff. 10, 11.] Recommendation. of Timothy to their good reception and offices. He had preceded Paul (Acts xix. 22) in the journey to Macedonia. From ἐὰν ἔλθῃ, it would appear to have been probable, but not quite certain, that he would visit them. Inch. iv. 17, he is described as sent on for that purpose: so that the ἐάν may merely refer to the uncertainties of the journey. 10. BA. ἵνα ἀφόβ. y.} There must have been some special reason for this caution respecting Timothy, besides that assigned by Meyer, al., that he would naturally be depreciated as only a subor- dinate of Paul, whom so many of them opposed. His youth occurs to us, men- tioned 1 Tim. iv. 12: bunt even that is ἢ t enough, and would hardly be intended here, without some reference to it. De Wette’s conjecture may not be withont foundation, that he was perhaps of a timid 624 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOT®S A. \ \ , > ΄ “ ” U Ξ ᾽ , \ dtuxe igs, δὲ αὐτὸν ἃ ἐν ἃ εἰρήνῃ, ἵνα ἔλθῃ πρός με" ° ἐκδέχομαι yap Acts xvi. 36 ’ 15. James 1]. 1611]. Judg. xviii. 6 B (εἰς εἰρ. A Ald. compl.). gospp., Matt. . Mark jii. 12 a5.) ver. 19. James iil. 2. Eccl. xii. 10 (2). g constr., ch. i. 10 reff. δὲ Ὁ“ m > , € oTav ™ εὐκαιρησῇ. 4 κραταιοῦσθε. w.inf., Rom. (reff). οἰ ει, αὐτὸν μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν. 12 Περὶ δὲ ᾿Απολλὼ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ᾿ πολλὰ 8 παρεκά- Neca αὐτόν, ὃ ἵνα ἔλθη πρὸς ὑμᾶς μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν' καὶ "πάντως οὐκ inv * θέλημα "iva νῦν ἔλθη, ἐλεύσεται “ ΄ ΄- ‘ 18 π Πρηγορεῖτε, “στήκετε ἐν τῇ πίστει, Ρ ἀνδρίζεσθξ, 14 τ άντα ὑμῶν ἐν ἀγάπῃ " γινέσθω. 1ὅ εἸΤαρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί: οἴδατε τὴν " οἰκίαν xii. 1 reff. a στὶν Va τῆς ᾽ i } Xap ¥ " mitre.” Στεφανῶᾶ, Y ὅτι ἐστὶν ἡ ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας καὶ * εἰς ¥ δια reff. i Matt. xviii. 14. k of man, ch. vii. 37 reff. l see Matt. vii. 12. Mark vi. 25. ix. 30 al. m Mark vi. 31. Acts xvii. 21 (reff.) only. n — Mark xili. 87. 1 Thess. v.6 al. fr. (Jer. v. 6.) o Rom. xiv. 4 reff. p here only. Josh. i. 6. q Luke i. 80. ii. 40. Eph. iii. 16 only. Neh. ii. 18. t ver. 12. w Rom. viii. 23 reff. ix. 15. xiv. 26, 40. 20, Gal. i. Mal. ΠΡ wie dal + for δε, ow MP: om NR}. αδελφ. B. 12. om ἀπολλω N}(ins X-corr!) eth. [not am harl?j goth [Ambrst ]. 13. om τη F. (-os, 1 Pet. v. 6.) Ὁ = John iv. 53. Gen.1. 8. eue BD'F Orig[-c, |(txt,) Damase. s=ch. v constr., ch. ili. ych. xii.5. Actsi. r constr., here only. x Acts xiii. 48 reff. Om μετὰ TOY ins dnAw vu ott bef πολλα D!IFN! latt ins kat bef κραταιουσθε A D-gr vulg(and F-lat) Syr copt xth [Pel] : om BC F[-gr] KLPX rel D-lat(with G-lat fri) syr goth Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] Ee Ambrst. [ M doubtful. ] 15. om δὲ D!-gr &! 71 goth eth arm. aft στεφανα ins καὶ φορτουνατου DX* am(with demid fuld harl) arm Thdrt Damase Ambrst: καὶ φορτ. και αχαΐκου C! Fa vulg-ed(with [demid] tol F-lat) syr-w-ast(and mg-gr) (additions from ver 17)» for ἐστιν, εἰσιν Cl(appy) DF [vulg arm] Orig-int,. disposition. Meyer objects that we have no historical trace of this: but I think some are to be found in 1 Tim.:—e. g. iii. 15; v. 22, 23. τὸ ἔργον κυρ.] see ref., note. 11. ἐν εἰρήνῃ] χωρὶς μάχης καὶ φιλονεικίας, ‘Iheophyl., and similarly Chrys. ἵνα ἔλθ. the aim of mpoméuy. ἐκδέχ. yap αὐτ.] καὶ τοῦτο φοβοῦν- τος αὐτοὺς ἦν. ἵνα γὰρ εἰδότες, ὅτι πάντα εἰρήσεται πρὸς αὐτὸν ἅπερ ἂν πάθῃ. ἐπιει- κέστεροι γένωνται, διὰ τοῦτο προςέθηκεν" éxd. y. avt. Chrys. Hom. xliv. p. 407. Theophyl. adds, ἅμα δὲ καὶ αἰδεσιμώτε- ρον αὐτὸν ποιῶν, εἴγε οὕτως ἀναγκαῖον τοῦτον ἔχει, ὥςτε ἐκδέχεσθαι αὐτόν. By μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν it would appear, comparing ver. 12, that more brethren be- sides Erastus (Acts xix. 22) accompanied Timotheus to Macedonia. It is hardly pro- bable (as Calov. and De W.,al.), that wera τ. 45. is to be taken with éxdéxoua: “1 and the brethren expect him.’ 12. Of Apollos: that he was not willing at present to go to them. δέ, transitional. On the construction of wept... . a8., see on ver. 1. παρεκάλ. ἵνα ἔλθῃ] ἵνα denotes the aim, no! only the purport of the exhortation. See remarks on ch. xiv. 13. *‘ Ideo excusat, ne suspicentur Corinthii ab eo fuisse impeditum ... .« Apud se queerere poterant : Cur hos potius quam Apollo nobis misit ? Respondet, minime per se stetisse, &c.” Calvin. Meyer remarks, perhaps the Corinthians had ex- pressly desired that Apollos should be sent to them. peta τ. ἀδελφ.} perhaps, those who went with Timotheus (see above): perhaps, those who were to bear this letter (ver. 17). kai] and, not, ‘but :’ see John xvi. 32; Rom.i. 13. It merely couples the exhortation with its result. θέλημα Evidently the will of Apollos, not, as Theophyl.: τουτέστιν, 6 θεὸς οὐκ ἤθελεν. ὅταν εὐκαιρ.7 The present καιρός not seeming to him a suit- able one: apparently on account of the divisions hinted at in the beginning of the Epistle. 13.] εἶτα δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τοῖς διδασκάλοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὀφείλουσι τὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχειν τῆς σωτηρίας. φησί: ypny. κιτ.λ. Chrys., who adds: διὸ λέγει, γρηγορεῖτε, ὡς καθευδόντων" στή- κετε, ὡς σαλευομένων: ἀνδρίζεσθε, κρα- ταιοῦσθε, ὡς μαλακιζομένων. πάντα Up. ἐν ἀγάπῃ γινέσθω, ὡς στασιαζόντων. p. 407 f. avdpif. | Aristot. Eth. iii. 6. 12:—@ua δὲ καὶ ἀνδρίζονται, ἐν ois ἐστιν ἡ ἀλκή, ἢ καλὸν τὸ ἀποθανεῖν. Wetst.: where see cther examples. 15—18.| Recommen- dation of the family of Stephanas to their honourable regard: and by occasion, ex- pression of his own joy at the presence of Stephanas and his companions. 15. | Some expositors (Erasm., Wolf, al.) take οἴδατε as imperative, and regard if as the command: but the imperative use of οἴδατε KAT: APECDF KLMPR abcde fghkl mnol7, 47 12—19. / wn z / x ¥ e 4 16 t (/ \ e a : κονίαν τοῖς 7 ἁγίοις * ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς" ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς « Acts ix.13 e - μ᾿ " ᾿Ξ ren. εὑποτάσσησθε ὃ τοῖς ὃ τοιούτοις, καὶ παντὶ τῷ “ συνερ- ἴ; γοῦντι καὶ ἃ κοπιῶντι. =e a , - ~ e Ν ic Xtehava καὶ Φορτουνάτου καὶ Ayaixod, ὅτι τὸ ὃ ὑμέτερον e , ’ \ “Weed "ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ ' ἀνεπλήρωσαν' 18 * ἀνέπαυσαν yap τὸ ἐμὸν 'ἱ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὑμῶν. > τοιούτους. > Lal -Ὗ 19 ᾿Ασπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ " ἐκκλησίαι τῆς ᾿Ασίας. a f e ΄ῸὉ ,’ eTal ὑμᾶς °év °Kupiw πολλὰ ᾿Ακύλας καὶ Ἰ]ρίσκιλλα, 4,7. t 2 2 αἱ ‘ Macc. viii. 12. xv. 21 only. 12. x1.9. Phil. ii. 30. Col. i. 24. xiv. 16 reff. 1= Acts xvii. 16 reff. n Rom. xvi. 16 reff. 16. om Ist και M. ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOTS A. ive χαίρω δὲ m 5 7 9 b \ ETTLYLUMOKETE OVV TOUS k = Matt. xi. 28. m ==-2 Cor. vi. 9. o Rom. xvi. 2, 8, 12 ἃ]. 625 Rom. i. a Rom. vili. 7, ese Cole / 20 reff. ETL ΤΊ) παρουσία Ὁ ch. vii. 15, 28. c Mark xvi. 20. Rom. viii. 28. 2 Cor. vi. 1, James ii. 22 only+. Esdr. vii.2. 1 Macc. xii. 1 only. (-yos, ch. iii. 95) d ch. xv. 10 reff. > ΄ econstr., ch. ACTTA~ _ xiii. 6 reff. = 2 Cor. vil. Phil. i. 6. 11. 12 = chy αν, Ὁ: h 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14. ix. 1 Thess. iii. 10. P., exc. Luke xxi. 4. Judg. xviii. 10. ich. 2 Cor. vii. 13. Philem. 7,20. 1 Chron. xxii. 9, 18. Deut. i. 17. xxxiii. 9. (see 1 Thess. v. 12.) p ver. 12 reff. aft καὶ κοπιωντι ins ev υὑμιν F Ambrst. 17. rec φουρτουνατου, with KMP rel Chr-ed Thdrt-ed [Euthal-ms Damase-ed]: txt ABCDFLX®& e m 17. 47. rec (for υμετερον)ὴ υμων, with AKLN rel Chr, [Euthal- ms] Thdrt Damase: txt BCDF[M]P m 17. ree outro, with BCKLPN rel {Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase: txt ADFM vulg Syr [syr] Chr, Ge (#d¢ D-lat [fri] : pst [aut] ili G-lat: tsi vulg [Ambrst]). 18. aft yap ins καὶ D!F latt goth Ambrst Pel Bede. aft ac εκκλησιαι add πασαι CP 47 Syr Chr,. 19. om A 34 [om Ist clause a m]. Tots τοιουτοις P, rec ασπαζονται (for -e-), with BFLM rel [latt &c Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc]: txt C D[-grj KPX ὁ goth [Thdrt-c, ]. ev κυρ. 123 Ambrst. ακυλας bef πολλα D [fri]. πολλα bef ev kupiw Μ ἃ 17.74 arm: om for πρισκιλλα, πρισκα BMPR 17 am(with demid harl) fri copt goth arm Pel. for ἴστε) seems to be without example. We must therefore understand it as indica- tive, and the construction is the well-known attraction, οἶδά σε τίς εἶ (Meyer). ἀπαρχή] See Rom. xvi. 5: the first Achean converts. ἔταξαν, plur., refer- ring te the noun of number, οἰκία. This family were among the few baptized by Paul, see ch. i. 16. ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς] So Demosth. de falsa legat.: βούλομαι δὲ ὑπομνῆσαι eis τίνα τάξιν ἔταξεν ἑαυτὸν Αἰσχίνης, Wetst.: where see other exam- ples. The ἑαυτούς is not without mean- ing—they voluntarily devoted their ser- vices. eis Stak. Tots ἁγίοις to ser- vice for the saints : in what way, does not appear: but perhaps, from the fact of Ste- phanas being at that time in Ephesus,— for journeys and missions. 16.] καὶ ὑμεῖς, you in your turn,—in retarn for their self-devotion. ὑποτάσσ.] viz. in honouring their advice and being ready. to be directed by them: there is an allu- sion to ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς above. τοῖς τοιούτοις | fo such persons, meaning the in- dividuals of Stephanas’s family, whom they knew. See the usage of 6 τοιυῦτος in reff. συνεργοῦντι] viz. with τοῖς τοιούτοις. 17.) Perhaps Fortunatus and Achai- cus were members of the family of Ste- phanas. The Fortunatus mentioned by Clement at the end of his Ep. i. to the Corinthians (c. 59, p. 328) may be the same. παρουσίᾳ) viz. in Ephesus. Vor. Tl. τὸ ὑμέτερον vor.| The want of you (ref.): i.e. of your society. Grotius interprets it, “Quod vos omnes facere oportuit, id illi fecerunt: certiorem me fecere de vestris morbis,” and holds them to have been οἱ Χλοῆς of chap.i.11. But it is very improbable that he should men- tion thus a family so distinguished as this : he names them just after, ch. i. 16, as the household of Stephanas :—and still more improbable that one of so fine feeling should add of the bearers of such tidings, ἀνέπαυσαν k.T.A., which would on that hypothesis be almost ironical. 18. καὶ ὑμῶν this is a beautiful expres- sion of true affection used in consciousness of the effect of this epistle on them: q. ἃ. ‘it is to their presence here that you owe much of that in this my letter which 1 know will refresh and cheer your spirits.’ Theophyl. explains it: ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι ἣ αὐτοῦ ἀνάπαυσις, αὐτῶν ἐστιν. ὥστε ἐπεί, ἐμοῦ ἀναπαυθέντος περὶ αὐτῶν, Kat ὑμεῖς ἐκερδήσατε αὐτὸ τοῦτο, τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνά- παυσιν, μηδὲν ἄχαρι πρὸς αὐτοὺς τούτους ἐνδείξησθε :—Grot., of the announcement which they would make on their return of Paul’s love for the Corinthians. But this last can hardly be. ἐπιγινώσκετε] know, the prep. giving force, and slightly altering the meaning to that of vecog- nition. Grot. and Theophyl.,—ev τιμῇ αὐτοὺς ἔχετε. 19, 20.] Salutations, 19, ἐν κυρίῳ] see note, Rom. xvi. 2, Ss C26 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@GIOTS A. XVI. 20,84: ὺν τῇ 51 > To. ἠχῶν 9 ἐκκλ 20 g il qRom.xvi.5. σὺν ITN “ἴ καὶ * OlKOY AUTwWY * ἐκκλησίᾳ. aOTACOVTAL ABCDP Acts ii. 46 reff. = e > , / , KLMPR sRom.xvi.18 ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀδελφοὶ πάντες. ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν " φιλή- adede τοῦ. a) fghkl ἐφ μενοι i, = MATL ALO. mnol7, 17. ¢ \ a tal ξ 47 u and Paul) 91 ‘O "ἃ ἀσπασμὸς TH ἐμῇ " χειρὶ Ἰ]αύλου. 35 ἡ εἴ τις asa Ove : ) cs ΄ / only: (°5PP» οὐ φιλεῖ TOV κύριον, ἡ ἤτω ἡ ἀνάθεμα. μαραναθά. 38 ἡ 7 i al4.)+ a , a a / ᾽ nA a > ς a Αγ 8 > ΄, v as above (Ὁ). χάρις του KUPLOU Inoov μεθ ULV). Se Sy ayaTn Gal. vi. 11. Philem. 19. w Rev. xiv. 11. x James v. 12. Ps. ciii. 31. b a \ , = lal 2 an? lal μου META πάντων ὑμῶν ἐν χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. [ἀμήν.] 1 Macc. x. 31. y Rom. ix. 3 reff. z here only a Rom. xvi. 20 [24]. Rev. xxii. 21 al. ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOTS A. b gen. subj., Phil. i. 9. Col.i.8. Philem. 5,7. Rey. ii. 4, 19. at end ins map ois(ovs ΕἾ και ξενιζομαι DF latt[mot am fuld harl(appy, Treg) fri] goth Pel. 21. om τη C. 22. rec aft κυριον ins inoovy χριστον, with C3DFLN* e g m 47 am [fuld harl] syr copt goth [Damase Ambrst |: ἡμῶν imo. xp. KP rel vulg-ed [demid] (Syr) [eth] Chr, (Victorin,): om ABC!MN?! 17 fri Chr-ms [Euthal-ms | Cyr). 23. aft kupiov ins nuwy ALP bf k m o 17 vulg ({fuld demid &c] not am) fri Syr copt Chr, [Euthal-ms | Thl Ambrst. rec aft inaou adds xpiorov, with ACD F{-gr] KLMPN:? rel latt syrr copt «th arm Chr [Euthal-ms Damase] Ambrst; om BN! n 17. 47 am(with tol F-lat al) goth Thdrt. 24. om μου A 73. om αμην BFM 17 fuld(and tol) fri [Euthal-ms Ambrst] : ins ACDKLPX rel [vulg-clem am demid syrr copt goth wth arm Chr,-txt Thdrt-txt Damasc-txt ]. SUBSCRIPTION: rec adds eypapyn amo φιλιππων δια στεφανα και φουρτουνατου και αχαικου και τιμοθεου, with KL(first inserting ἐπιστολη) ἃ e f g k (m) n 47 [Euthal-ms], similarly (but for φιλιππων, epecov) ἃ h: eypapyn amo εφεσου B*P: eypapyn amo φιλιππων μακεδυνιας D?: εγραφη amo acias k.T.A., omg (as does m) mp. Kop. πρωτη, b 0: om altogether M1: txt AB!CX 17, and D!(adding ἐπληρωθὴ) F(prefixing ἐτελεσθη). On Aquila and Priscilla, see Rom. xvi. 3, 4; Acts xviii. 2. They had removed from Corinth (Acts xvili. 1) to Ephesus (ib. 26), and had there, as su'sequently at Rome (Rom. xvi. 3, 5), an assembly of the faithful meeting in their dwelling. οἱ 48. mavres—the whole Ephesian church. ἐν gtd. ay. | see Rom. xvi. 16, note. 21—24. | Autograph con- clusion. ὃ ἀσπασμός is the final greet- ing, which, according to ref. 2 ‘Thess., was always in his own hand, the rest having been written (see Rom. xvi. 22) by an amanuensis. Παύλου is in apposition with ἐμοῦ implied in ἐμῇ, as 1]. ρ. 226, ὑμέτερον δὲ ἑκάστου θυμὸν ἀέξω : ἐμὸς τοῦ ἀθλίου βίος, and the like. See Kiihner, ὃ 499. 4. 22.1 He adds, as in Col. iv. 18; Eph. vi. 24, some exhorta- tion, or solemn sentence, in his own hand, as having especial weight. On the dis- tinction between φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾷν see notes on John xxi.15. The negation here of the feeling of personal affection, “ has no love in his heart for,” is worthy of note, as connected with the curse which follows. ἤτω ἀνάθ.] On ἀνάθεμα, see note, Rom. ix. 3:—let him be 80- cursed. papavada | An Aramaic ex- pression, NN JV or NON NIT the (or our) Lord cometh (or, is come, as Chrys., al., ὁ κυρ. nu. ἦλθε: in 1 John iv. 2 the same Syriac form is used to express ἐληλυθότα) : probably unconnected with ἀνάθεμα: and added perhaps (Mey.) as recalling some remembrance of the time when Paul was among them: at all events, as a weighty watchword tending to recall to them the nearness of His coming, and the duty of being found ready for it :—not added, as Riickert, to stamp genuineness on the letter,—for why here rather than in other Epistles, espe- cially as those who were to bear it were so well known? See Stanley’s note. 24. ἣ ay. μου] Because the Epistle had contained so much that was of a severe character, he concludes it with an expres- sion of affection ; so Chrys.: μετὰ τοσαύ- THY κατηγορίαν οὐκ ἀποστρέφεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ φιλεῖ καὶ περιλαμβάνει πόῤῥωθεν αὐτοὺς ὄντας. Hom. xliv. p. 411. ἐν xp. Ἴησ.] τουτέστιν, οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπινον ἢ cap- κικὸν ἣ ἀγάπη μου ἔχει, ἀλλὰ πνευματικῇ ἐστι καὶ ἐν χριστῷ. Theophyl. ‘ C και ει- ρηνὴ... AKBCDEF KLMPxR abcef yhkim nol/, 47 NS SERS -.- -.- SE — ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOYS B. 1. 1 ἸΠαῦλος ἀπόστολος χριστοῦ “Inood * διὰ θελήματος * Rom. xv. 32 λ ῇ a “ἢ a A θεοῦ, καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφός, τῇ ” ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ » θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν ἹΚορίνθῳ “ σὺν τοῖς 4 ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ. A b1Cor.i.2 reff. ce = Acts xxiii. 15, 1 Cor. i.2. Phil. 9 e 7 e a \ e > , > K θ na 1. re Xapes ULL και ELPHVY agro €OU ἃ Acts ix. 13. Ἢ raf 3 al A πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ. ὑ Γὐλογητὸς ὁ ϑθεὸς καὶ ὃ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἢ reff. e Rom. i. 7. f Rom. ix. 5 reff. g Rom. xy. 6 reff. TITLE. Steph 7 προς τοὺς κορινθιους δευτερα : elz παυλου του αποστολου ἢ προς κορινθιους ἐπιστολή δευτερα, with rel: τοῦ αγιου αποστολου παυλου επιστολὴ προ Κορ. 8.1. (h): top of page. (P [def. ]) apxeTat mpos κυρινθιους B’ D! Ἐ(δευτερη) : [ἡ mp. Kop. B’ em. εκτεθεισα ws ev πίνακι Μ :] ἐπιστολὴ προς Kop. δευτερα k 1: txt ABKN m(devt.) ἢ ο 17. 47, and C at Cuap. I. 1. rec inoov bef χριστου, with ADGKL rel [latt Syr copt goth xth arm | Chr, Damase [Ambrst]: om iyo. xp. F(and lat) : [ Euthal-ms] Thdrt. Cuap. I. 1, 9.1 ADDRESS AND GREET- ING. 1, διὰ θελ. θεοῦ] see 1 Cor. i. 1, note. Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδ.} So of Sos- thenes, 1 Cor. i. 1; ‘one of of ἀδελφοί; —but perhaps in this case with peculiar emphasis: see 1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. ii. 1. On his being with Paul at this time, see Prolegg. to this Epistle, * § 11. 4. σὺν τ. ἀγ. πᾶσιν... . This, and the Epistle to the Galatians, were cir- cular letters to all the believers in the respective countries: the variation of ex- pression in the two cases (ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τ. Γαλατίας, Gal. i. 2) being accounted for by the circumstance that the matter of this Epistle concerned directly the church at Corinth, and indirectly all the saints in the province,—whereas that to the Galatians, being to correct deep- rooted Judaizing error, directly concerned all the churches of Galatia. Achaia comprehended Hellas and Peloponnesus ; the province was so named by the Ro- mans because they became, possessed of them by subduing the Achean league, Pausan. vii. 16. 7. See Acts xviii. 12. 2.] See 1 Cor. i. 8. 8—11.] THANKSGIVING FOR DELIVERANCE FROM 5 ΡΞ 5 txt BMPN 17 hal(and mar al) syr GREAT DANGER OF HIS LIFE: — HIS ABILITY TO COMFORT OTHERS IN AaFFLIC- TION. Commentators have endeavoured to assign a definite purpose to this open- ing of the Epistle. De Wette thinks that Paul had xo definite purpose, except to pour out the thankfulness of his heart, and to begin by placing himself with his readers in a position of religious feeling and principle far above all discord and dissension. But I cannot agree with this. His purpose shews so plainly through the whole latter part of the chapter, that it is only consistent with vv. 12—24 to find it beginning to be introduced here also. I believe that Chrys. has given the right account: ἐλύπει Alay αὐτοὺς K. ἐθορύβει τὸ μὴ παραγενέσθαι ἐκεῖ τὸν ἀπόστολον, καὶ ταῦτα ἐπαγγειλάμενον, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἅπαντα ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ ἀναλῶσαι χρόνον, καὶ δοκεῖν αὐτῶν ἑτέρους προτετιμηκέναι. διὰ τοῦτο πρὸς τοῦτο ἱστάμενος τὸ θορυβεῖν (al. ἀνθ- ορμοῦν), λέγει τὴν αἰτίαν δι’ ἣν οὐ παρεγέ- vero’ οὐ μὴν ἐὲ εὐθείας αὐτὴν τίθησιν, οὐδὲ λέγει ὅτι οἶδα μὲν ὑποσχόμενος ἥξειν, ἐπειδὴ δὲ διὰ τὰς θλίψεις ἐνεποδίσθην, σύγ- Ὕνωτε, K. μὴ καταγνῶτέ τινα ὑπεροψίαν ἢ ῥᾳθυμίαν ἡμῶν" ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρως αὐτὸ (al, 2 ΄ ad 625 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. j » - »-“ e h \ - i 5 ~ \ θ Ἀ , = Eph. i 17. Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ, ὁ ὃ πατὴρ τῶν ' οἰκτίρμὼν καὶ θεὸς πάσης aBcDF ames 1. 17 = ͵ ¢ & a as ἜΝΝ ; ~ KLMPx i Rom. xi1- J) παρακλήσεως, 40 XqapaxaX\ov ἡμᾶς ᾿ἔπι Taon Τῇ « b ce : Col. iii. 12. ᾿ cr > \ ΄ Palin Pm - Hes. x28 θλίψει ἡμῶν, " εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς " παρακαλεῖν τοὺς 017.47 Su | ΐ θλί διὰ ns 7 X21) pe ee (cuss ee eee Ayer διὰ τῆς ) παρακλήσεως " ἧς “παρακα- xciii. 19. k == Luke xvi. 25. Acts xx. , Mba Geek Τῶν a θ a 5¢ θὰ o ΄, \ λούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃ ὅτι καθὼς ° περισσεύει τὰ ΄ A ‘a 3 an i -“ Ρ παθήματα τοῦ χριστοῦ “ εἰς ἡμᾶς, οὕτως "Oia τοῦ 12. ch. ii. 7, “A 0 , My erat ΄ oF ες ὦ 6s ε" Sal. Gen. ἰστου TTEPLOO EVEL Kat ἢ TTapAaK ησις μῶν. €LTE xxiv. 67. , = ΜΗ τς Ὁ ἰ F Η 1 = Mark xii δὲ ᾿Θλιβόμεθα. ὑπὲρ THs " ὑμῶν Ἰ παρακλήσεως καὶ σω- m. ¥. 2. Matt. xiv. 14 al. fr. m Acts iii. 19. vii. 19 al. n constr., Rom. it. 16. o Rom. ili. 7 reff. p Rom. vii. 5 reff. (see note.) q = Rom. vy. 15. viii. 18. r — 1 Thess. iv. 2 s constr., | Cor. xii. 26. t = ch. iv. 8. vii.5. 1 Thess. i1.4, 2 Thess. 1. 6.7. 1Tim. v.10. Heb. xi. 37 (Matt. vii. 14. Mark iii. 9) only. Ps. exix. 1. 19 reff. and note. 3. om 2nd ο F. 4. for em, εν Ο 1n Eus, Chr, Antch, Procop,. (P [def.]) for εἰς, wa F [μέ possimus latt]. Ambr: vuwy 3. Ambr, Bede (not fri Jer, Ambrst). (P [def. }) 5. for τα παθηματα, το παθημα Ὁ} [ D-gr, Tischdf: ta παθητα τη]. ins καὶ DIF τὰ 17. 80 latt copt goth. (vulg Damase om καὶ below.) Ὁ posn., see ch. xii. om ynuwy M Hil ins και bef avto: D!F latt for ὑπο, aro F(not G) 109. aft ουτως rec om Tou (bef 2nd χριστου) : ins ABCDFKM P(appy) δὲ rel Orig,[om δ. τ. x.,].—om from περισσ. to περισσ. L. 6. for εἰτε δε, εἰ δε D'[-gr] 32: om δε C. τοῦτο) K. μεγαλοπρεπέστερον kK. ἀξιοπισ- τότερον κατασκευάζει, ἐπαίρων τῇ παραμυ- θίᾳ τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἵνα μηδὲ ἐρωτῶσι λοιπὸν τὴν αἰτίαν, δι᾽ ἣν ὑστέρησε. Hom.i. p. 420. Calvin, somewhat differently: ‘ Incipit ab hac gratiarum actione, partim ut Dei bonitatem pradicet, partim ut animet Corinthios suo exemplo ad persecutiones fortiter sustinendas : partim ut pia gloria- tione se efferat adversus malignas obtrec- tationes pseudapostolorum.” But this does not touch the matter of the post- poned journey to Corinth, which through the latter part of the chapter is coming more and more visibly into prominence, till it becomes the direct subject in ver. 23. 3.] εὐλ., Blessed (above allothers) , ek ph iy ee 71 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here, as in ref. Rom., De Wette would render, ‘ God, and the Father’ ...., which grammatically is allowable; but I prefer the other rendering, on account of its greater verisimilitude and simplicity. ὁ π. τ. οἰκτιρ.7 οἰκτ. can hardly be the gen. of the attribute, as De W. and Grot., seeing that oir. is plural and refers to acts of mercy; but as Chrys., p. 421, 6 οἰκτιρμοὺς τοσούτους ἐπιδειξάμενος : see ref. James. This meaning De W. himself recognizes in ὁ 0. πάσης mapaxA.,—‘ the God who works all (possible) comfort,’ and refers to 6 θεὸς τ. ἐλπίδυς, Rom. xv. 13. 4.) The Apostle in this Epistle uses mostly the Jirst person plur., perhaps as including Timothy, perhaps, inasmuch as he writes apostolically (cf. ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀποστύλους, ot himself and Apollos, 1 Cor. iv. 9), as for lst vuwy, ἡμων L. om Ist speaking of the Apostles in common. This however will not explain all places where it occurs elsewhere: e.g. 1 Thess. ii. 18, ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος, καὶ ἅπαξ x. Sis,—where see note. So that after all perhaps it is best to regard it merely as an idiomatic way of speaking, when often only the singular is intended. In order that we may be able: not, ‘so that we are able.’ διὰ τοῦτο yap παρ- εκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς, φησίν, va ἡμεῖς ἀλλήλους παυακαλῶμεν. Chrys. ib. “ Non 5101 vivebat Apostolus, sed Ecclesiz: ita quicquid gra- tiarum in ipsum conferebat Deus, non sibi soli datum reputabat, sed quo plus ad alios juvandos haberet facultatis.” Calv. ἧς, attr. for 7, or perhaps (Winer, edn. 6, § 24. 1) for ἣν (παράκλησιν παρακαλεῖν). 5.] ‘As He is, so are we in this world τ 1 John iv. 17. As the suffer- ings of Christ (endured by Christ, whether in his own person, or in his mystical body the Church, see Matt. xxv. 40, 45) abound towards us (i.e. in our case, see reti.) ;— even so through Christ our consolation also abounds. The form of expression is altered in the latter clause: instead of 7- παράκλησις τοῦ χριστοῦ περισ. We have ἡ παράκ. ἡμῶν περισσ. διὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ. And not without reason :—we suffer, be- cause we are His members: we are con- soled because He is our Head. There is no comparison (as Chrys., p. 422, ob yap ὅσα ἔπαθε, φησίν, ἐπάθομεν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περισσά) between the personal sufferings of Christ, and theirs. 6.1 And all this for your benefit. But whether we are afflicted, (it is) on behalf of your es 4- 8, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ Β. 629 τηρίας τῆς ¥ ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ἡ ὑπομονῇ TOV αὐτῶν 4 παθη- + Rom. vi. 5 , x 2 \ ς a ΄ ἀν, aN 7 Se B= ii. 7 μάτων *@v καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν, καὶ ἡ " ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν " Re Ζ ΄ αὐτὸν ee te k ΄ ees a παρ, Acts i. βεβαία " ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν" "Ἡ εἴτε * παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς 1 reff. j ͵ y constr., w. υ ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας, 7 εἰδότες OTL Ws Fe Ofer τὰ τη ia is τ IP ᾽ - son, Acts 5] lal ΄ “ \ aA . . “iii. 20. Ὁ κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν I παθημάτων, οὕτως καὶ τῆς Jmapa- ἘΝῚ 20. 7 8c > \ , ey a ο » = 9 , pi sr iv. κλήσεως. Οὐ γὰρ θέλομεν ὑμᾶς “ ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ¥ (ref). aA / e a A / n~ 9 j Η τι Limp τῆς θλίψεως ἡμῶν τῆς γενομένης ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ, «Hit! \ ee ͵ or. x. 18, ὅτι “ καθ᾽ “ ὑπερβολὴν ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ὃ ἐβαρήθημεν, ὥςτε 20 reff c om. 1. 15. xi, 25. 1 Cor. x. 1. xii. 1. 1 Thess. iv. 13. = John i. 30. ch. viii. 23. 2 Thess. ii. 1. e Rom. vii. 13 reff. f f = Acts xxvi. 13 al. g Matt. xxvi. 43 (|| ΜΚ. ν. σ.). Luke ix. 32. xxi. 34. ch. ν. 4. 1Tim.v.16 onlyt. Isa. i. 4 Symm. [Aq., &c.?j και σωτηριας Β 17. 176. rec has εἰτε παρακαλουμεθα ὑπερ της υμων παρακλήσεως και σωτηριας bef και ἡ ελπις μων βεβαια ὑπερ υμων : εἰτε παρακ. UTEP T. υμ. παρακλη- σεως TNS ενεργουμενης EV ὑπομονὴ τῶν avT. παθ. ων K. Nu. π. καὶ ἡ ελπ., OME και σωτηριας, ΑΟΜΡΝ am(with flor fuld? harl tol’) fri Syr copt 2th (arm Ephr,) Antch, [Ambrst (Jer,)], and, but insg καὶ σωτηριας, m fuld!: sive consolamur pro vestra consolatione sive exhortamur pro vestra exhortatione et salute vulg-ed(with demid) : txt (BDFK)L rel syr[has rns σωτηριας w-ast] goth Chr, Thdrt Damase Phot Thi (Ec.—om avtwy Καὶ : avtov Ὁ ὁ g Καὶ 0.—ws D'!F (G-lat has both).—for nuwy, vuwy Β o. 7. rec (for ws) wsrep, with D?-3[-gr} KL rel Chr, Thdrt: οἱ (= εἰ 3) F{-gr], si D-lat Syr: om G-lat: sicut F-lat [vulg Ambrst]: txt ABC D}{[-gr] MPN 17 Orig, Ephr Damasce. D-lat Syr goth. των παθηματων bef εστε DF latt goth. om ουτως Εἰ ποῦ F-lat| 8. for υπερ, περι ACDFPR Ὁ m? 0 17. 47 Orig[-c,] Bas, Chr, Thdrt Antch, Tert: txt BK LM rel [Chr,] Damase ΤῊ] Cc. rec aft γεν. ins nu, with D3[-gr] KLN? rel [syrr copt-wilk goth eth] Bas, Chr, Thdrt [Antch] Damase Ambrst: om ABC D!FMPR! 17 latt [arm] Orig[-c, Euthal-ms] (Tert,) Jer,. for ὑπερ, παρα D!TF. rec εβαρηθημεν bef ὑπερ δυναμιν, with DFKL rel vulg syrr goth Chr, Thdrt [Antch] Damasc Tert Ambrst: txt ABCMPS m 17 fri arm [(Orig-c,) Euthal-ms]j Bas, Jer). comfort (εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι x.T.A. ver. 4, only now applied to the Corinthians) and salvation (the great end of the παρά- KAnots), Which (viz. παράκλησις and σω- τηρία) is working (not, as Chrys., Theo- phyl., Estius, Beza, al., ‘being worked :’ the passive does not occur in St. Paul) in the endurance of the same sufferings which we also suffer ;—and our hope is stedfast on your behalf (that you zz7/l en- dure hardness, and be consoled and saved) ; —or whether we are comforted, (it is) for your comfort and salvation. This place of the words καὶ--- μῶν agrees best with the sense, besides being in accordance with the best Mss. Their position has perhaps been altered to bring the two parts vf the dilem- ma closer together, and because ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν seemed to suit the part. εἰδότες, and the future supposed to be implied after οὕτως καί (asin E. V.). The objection to this is (as De W.) that the ἐλπίς clearly must be referred to σωτηρία, which however is not hinted at in ver. 7. 7.] εἰδότες re- fers back to mapaxadovucba:—we are comforted with the assurance that, &c. After οὕτως καί understand not ἔσεσθε, but ἐστε: he is speaking generally, of the com- munity of consolation subsisting mutually: between himself and the Corinthians ; and it was this thought which helped to console him. 8.] see var. read. It is gene- rally supposed that the tribulation here spoken of was the danger into which Paul was brought by the tumult at Ephesus, re- lated in Acts xix. This opinion has been recently defended by Neander, Wieseler, and Dr. Davidson, but impugned by De Wette, on the grounds, (1)-that ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ can hardly refer to Ephesus, which Paul generally names, 1 Cor. xv. 32; xvi. 8; (2) that he was not in danger of his life in this tumult. The first ground is hardly tenable: there would be an appropriate- ness in ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ here, as he has in his mind an apologetic account of the reasons which hindered him from leaving those parts and coming to them. I own, however, that the strong expresstons here used do not seem to me to find their justifi- cation in any thing which we know of that tumult or its consequences. I am unable to assign any other event as in the Apos- tle’s mind: but the expressions seem rather to regard a deadly sickness, than a perse- cution : see below, vv. 9, 10. καθ᾽ ὑὕπερβ. signifies the greatness of the afflic- tion itself, objectively considered: ὑπὲρ 630 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. BE: peniv.sonly.® ἐξαπορηθῆναι ἡμᾶς καὶ ‘tod ζῆν: 35 ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ ἐν 5. iXxXXVil. 15 only. j ς a Nir he FZ rn fa / ΤᾺ ΄ m % \ pan. 1 ἑαυτοῖς τὸ " ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου | ἐσχήκαμεν, ™ wa μὴ Acts iii. 12 ᾿ 5 . an > \ A a A ref. πὸ πεποιθότες " ὦμεν 5 ἐφ᾽ 1 ἑαυτοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ 5 ἐπὶ TO θεῷ τῷ j Ist pers., ch. : 3 β ; : iii. 1 reff. aod = 10 a > r καρ one, PEYELPOVTL TOUS νεκρούς, *Y ὃς ἐκ 4THALKOUTOU θανάτου oo ii. 13. via. 5 2c .7 ς ε μα, 3 a tu 2 ͵ “ > Epp VOaATO μας Kab PUCETAL, εις ον ηλπίκαμεν οτι m = Johni. 31. n Heb. ii. 13, ΝΖ 8 47) ll v , } YTS Kare ΠΟ ἼΩΝ, ak: Και ετι βυσεται, συνυπουργο υντῶν και υμων ὑπερ 17. 5 Ὁ constr.,as above (η). Mark x. 34. Luke xi. 22. xviii. 9 only. Ps. ii. 12. w. acc., ch. ii. 3 reff. p = 1Cor. xv. 4 reff. : q Heb. ii. 3. James 11]. 4. Rev. xvi. 18 onlyt. 2 Mace. xii. 3. ri Choa 23. Ps.lv.13. (see ἀποθνήσκειν, 1 Cor. xy. 31.) s Kom. vii. 24 7 if t see Rom. xv. 12 reff. u perf., 1 Cor, xv. 19 reff. v here only t. 9. om εσχηκαμεν [)}. Thdrt Thi. 10. for eppv., ερυσατο B!. rec (for Ist ρυσεται) ρυεται (see notes), with DSFKLM rel vulg-ed(with fuld F-lat) syr goth Orig{-c],(and int,) Chr, Thdrt Th] ec [Ambrst ] Jer,: txt BCPN 17. 47 G-lat am(with mar tol) copt '(eth{-rom doubtful (Tischdf) |) arm (Ath,) [Euthal-ms] Damase.—om καὶ ρυσεται A D![and lat] demid Syr zth-pl θεον Tov εγειραντα Εἰ: εγειραντι Ὁ] 11 o Cyr[-ms-p, | Chry.1. om oT: B Di. gr | M: goth. 11. [for upoov] query A, Suv., the relation of it to our power of en- durance, subjectively. ὥςτε ἐξ.) So that we utterly despaired even of life. Such an expression surely would not be used of a tumult, where life would have been the first thing in danger, if Paul had been at all mixed up in it,—but to some wearing and tedious suffering, inducing de- spondency in minor matters, which even reached the hope of life itself. 9.1 ἀλλά, moreover,—carries en and in- tensifies the description of his hopeless state. We had in ourselves the re- sponse of death, i. 6. our answer within ourselves to the question, ‘ Life or Death ?’ was, ‘ Death.’ So Vulg., Estius, Billroth, Rickert, Meyer, De Wette. τ. ἀπόκρ. may perhaps mean, the ‘sentence,’ as Hesych.: ἀπόκριμα, κατάκριμα, Wipov,— and most Commentators, The perfect ἐσχήκαμεν is here (see also ch, ii. 12, 13) n a historical sense, instead of the aorist : which is unusual. Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 4 (see Moulton’s note 4, p. 340), illustrates the usage by ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν (τὸ βιβ- λίον), Rev. v. 7: see also Rev. viii. 5. ἵνα μὴ . . .7 very similarly ch. iv 7, ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὺν τοῦτον ἐν ὄστρα- κίνοις σκεύεσιν, ἵνα ἣ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνά- μεως ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν. τῷ ἐγ. τ. νεκρούς] Our thoughts were weaned from all hope of surviving in this life, and fixed on that better deliver- ance which God shall work when He raises us from the dead. To see in this expres- sion merely a figure (De W.), and under- stand ‘ Who raiseth the dead’ as = ‘ Who delivers men from peril of their lives? because such peril is below and elsewhere (ch. xi. 23) called @dvaros,—is surely very και bef ort ΕἾ not F-lat]. F-lat] ἢ k [Chr,] Ambrst Jer [goth eth om καὶ also]. for ὑπερ, περι DIF. om ev: D? ΕἾ not for 2nd puo., ρυεται F(-gr | τὴ Senoe: bef vrep μων C forced. Understanding it literally as above, I cannot see how it can be spoken with reference to the Ephesian tumult. If it alludes to any external danger, I should be disposed to refer it to the same obscure part of Paul’s history to which he alludes 1 Cor. xv.32, where he also speaks of the hope of the resurrection as his great support. But there would be this objection, that these two passages can hardly refer to the same event; this evidently had taken place since the sending of the first Epistle. 10.| Who rescued us from so great a death, and will rescue us,—on whom we hope that He will also continue to rescue us. ‘The rec. ῥύεται, has been sub- stituted for the fut. ῥύσεται, as more ap-~ propriate. But it regards the immediate future,—the καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται the continu- ance of God’s help in time distant and uncertain. The whole verse (as De W. confesses, who although he repudiates the Ephesian tumult, yet interprets the pas- sage as alluding to external danger) seems to favour the idea of bodily sickness being in the Apostle’s mind. 11.1 ovv- πυπουργούντων --- with whom? From the similar passage Rom. xv. 30, συναγωνίσασ- θαί μοι ἐν ταῖς mposevxais ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, τὸ would seem as if μοι should be supplied ;— but he himself could hardly be said ὕπουρ- γεῖν, though he well might ἀγωνίσασθαι. We must therefore understand the prepo- sition either with Chrys., Hom. ii. p. 432, ἃ ρνεται ABCDF KLMPx abcdf ghkim no 17.47 τουτέστιν, εὐχομένων πάντων ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ ᾿ἡμῶν, τοῦ as merely signifying coinci- dence with the purpose to be accom- plished, as in μὴ mpose@vTos ἡμᾶς τοῦ ἀνέμου, Acts xxvii. 7, where see note: ἵνα ἐκ πολλῶν προφςώπων..... .7 9-- 12, ἡμῶν τῇ δεήσει, ἵνα ἡ ἐκ πολλῶν " προςώπων τὸ . al Z ΄ ἃ ὃ \ AAG b > θῇ ¢ ‘ ΄ a ἡμᾶς *xapicpa * διὰ πολλῶν ” εὐχαριστηθῇ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. 12°H yap “καύχησις ἡμῶν αὕτη ἐστίν, τὸ μαρτύριον τῆς “ συνειδήσεως ἡμῶν, OTL ἐν ἶ ἁγιότητι καὶ ὅ εἰλικρινείᾳ ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. 691 . ὙΞ J ELS w= ch. ii. 2. ll. 5. x — here only. πρόςωπον ἀξιόχρεων τὸ προστη- σόμενον. Polyb. xy. 2a. A a > 2 / i re Paes ee 7 ΄ “ 8. ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ ' σαρκικῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν Ἰ᾿ χάριτι θεοῦ, y= λει: xx. k ἀνεστράφημεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, 'ἱ περισσοτέρως δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 29 41.1 8 80] Cor. i. 9. c Rom. iii. 27 reff. d Matt. viii. 4 al. fr. xxiii. 1. Rom. ii. 15al.fr.{ (Eccles. x. 20.) only+. 2 Macc. xv. 2 only. h so δικαιοσ. θεοῦ, Rom. iii. 21, 22. k = Eph. ii.3. 1 Tim. iii. 15. 1 Pet. i. 17. Wisd. xvii. 11 only. 2 Pet. ii. 18. 21. xxiv. 24. ch. ii. 4 al. z = Rom. v. 15, 16. vi. 23. xi. b 1 Cor. xi. 24 reff. constr., here only. e = (John viii. 9.] Ack f Heb. xii. IN Josh. xxiv. 27. g1Cor. ν. 8. ch. ii. 17 only+. (-ἥς, Phil. i. 10.) 11 Cor. iii. 3 reff. j — Rom.i.5. 1 Cor. iii. 10 al. Ezek. xix. 6. see Matt. xvii. 22, 1 ch. ii. 4 218., Paul. Heb. ii. 1. xiii. 19 (Mark xv. 14 ν. r,) only+. (-pos, 1 Cor. xii. 23, 24.) vulg copt Chr,: om [υπ. ημ.} Sedul, syr has it with ast. [G-gr] &!(but corrd) e?. for Ist nuwy, vuwy A ev πολλω Tposwrw ΕἾ -gr] M 67? Chr,{ txt, |, in multi- facie D-lat, in multa facie G-lat.—homeceotel in P πολλων to πολλων. vuas 17. [for 2nd nuwy| υμων BD3 F[-gr(not α)}] KLP ce? ἔξ ΒΕ] τὴ ἢ ὁ [eth(appy, Treg) } Damase Phot(in ic). 12. for 2nd ἡμων, vuwy(but corrd) X!. rec (for αγιοτητι) απλοτητι (see note, and Eph vi. 5, Col iii. 22), with DFLN? latt syrr goth Chr, Thdrt ΤῊ] Gc Ambrst : txt ABCKMPN?! m 17 copt arm Clem, Orig ev bef εἰλικρινεια A. DMR?3b a τὰ 17.47 Damasc,. Damasc,[{om μ1.]- σαρκινη F. “ Three constructions of this verse are pos- sible: (1) to take ἐκ πολλ. προςώπ. as well as διὰ πολλῶν with εὐχαριστηθῇ, -- in order that the mercy shewn to me may be given thanks for on my behalf by many persons with many words’ (Storr, Opusce. ii. 253): but the rendering ‘ with many words,’ is objectionable, see Matt. vi. 7 :— (2) to take ἐκ πολλ. mposwm. with evxap., and διὰ πολλῶν with τὸ εἰς Nu. χάρ.---- in order that the mercy shewn to me by means of (the intercession of) many, may be given thanks for by many persons on my behalf’ (Theophyl., Billroth, Meyer, who explain ἐκ π. mpos#m. ‘ex multis oribus:’ Stan- ley, ‘from many upturned faces’): but the position of the words is against this,— and it is more natural that the mention of the effect of the intercession should pre- cede that of the thanksgiving. (3) Con- sequently, the best method is to take ἐκ TOAA. Tposmm. with τὸ εἰς ju. χάρ., and διὰ πολλῶν with εὐχαρ. (Beza, Calov., Estius, Fritz., Rickert, al.):—in order that the mercy shewn to us by the inter- cession of many persons, may by many be given thanks for on our behalf.” De Wette. The emphasis of the whole being on the ἐκ πολλῶν προςώπων, he places it first, even before the art., after which it would naturally eome. προςώπων, ‘persons, a later meaning, which Phrynichus (see Wetst.) blames as used by of ἀμφὶ τὰς δίκας ῥήτορες. 12. 94 EXPRESSION OF HIS CONFI- DENCE IN HIS INTEGRITY OF PURPOSE TOWARDS THEM (12—14), AND DEFENCE , [Euthal-ms] Antch Damasc,. ins rec om Tov, with FKLPX* rel Orig, ΤῊ] Gc: ins ABC ins καὶ bef ove BM a τὰ vulg(and F-lat) syr OF HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGE OF FICKLENESS OF PURPOSE IN NOT HAVING COME TO THEM (15—24). 12.) yap, reason why they should help him with their united prayers. καύχησις] viewed in its ground and substance. But we must not say that it is for καύχημα : the Apostle regards the μαρτύριον and the καύχησις as coincident :—it is not the testimony, &c., of which he boasts, but in which his boasting itself consists. ἁγιότ.) ἁπλό- Τητι seems to be a gloss from Eph. vi. 5:—in holiness and sincerity of God: i.e. either ‘belonging to God, as ἢ δικαιοσ. αὐτοῦ, Matt. vi. 33, or ‘which is the gift of God,’ as in ref. Rom.,—or better than either, as Εἰ. V., ‘ godly,’ i.e. maintained as in the service of and with respect to God. Calvin interprets it, ‘ coram Deo. See on ch. ii. 17; and on the senses of ἁγιότ. and ἁπλότ., Stanley’s note. οὐκ ἐν cod. aap. | which fleshly wisdom is any thing but holy and pure, having many windings and insincerities in order to captivate men. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν yap. θεοῦ) but in the grace of God, i.e. in that χάρις which he had received (ref. Rom.) eis ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς Zéveoww—the grace of his apostleship. To this he often refers, see Rom. xii. 3, xv. 15; Eph. iii. 2, al. περισσοτέρως | “Non quod apud alios minus sincere con- versatus fnisset; sed quia majora sincere suz conversationis documenta apud Corin- thios ostenderat: ut quibus gratis ae sine stipendio preedicasset evangelium, parcens eorum infirmitati.” Estius. But perhaps 632 m Luke xii. 51. Num. xiii. 29. n Acts viii. 28 reff. ΟἹ Cor. ix. 8 reff. p Acts xxiii. 28 reff. q 1 Cor. i. 8 only (reff.). r constr., see 1 Cor. xiv. 37. s Rom. xi. 25 (reff.). xv. 15, 24. ch. ii. 5 only. u Rom. iv. 6 reff. v 1 Cor. i. 8 reff. 2. Eph. iii. 12. Phil. iii. 4 only. P. 13. om αλλ᾽ F. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. i. 13 οὐ yap ἄλλα γράφομεν ὑμῖν ™aXN ἢ ἃ ™ ἀναγινώσκετε ο ἢ ο καὶ Ῥ ἐπιγινώσκετε, ἐλπίζω δὲ ὅτι 4 ἕως 4 τέλους P ἐπι- ὕσεσθε. 1+ καθὰ τ Gore ‘us * ame. PME γνώσεσθε, 1: καθὼς καὶ Ὁ' ἐπέγνωτε ἡμᾶς " ἀπὸ "ὃ μέρους, ὅτι ᾿ καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν " καθάπερ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἡ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ἰησοῦ. / 3 a , \ e cal 3 “ [4 , ποιθήσει ἐβουλόμην πρότερον πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, ἵνα δευτέ- t Paul (Rom. iv. 2 418.) only, exc. Heb. ili. 6. Deut. x. 21 al. 15 καὶ Κ᾽ ταύτη TH * πε- w dat., 1 Cor. ix. 7. xi. ὃ ἃ]. x ch. iii. 4. viii. 4 Kings xviii. 19 only. om ἢ ἅ ἃ : om ἤ 4. [17] 219' Svr goth arm: om ἅ Dl. om ἢ kat επιγινώσκετε (homeotel) B οἱ 81. 41. 109. 288 (Ec: om ἡ ΕΚ 114 latt copt arm Awmbrst. rec ins kat bef ews, with D3[-gr] KLMP rel syr Chr, Thdrt [Antch, ] Thi Ge: om ABCD!FR 17 latt Syr copt goth arm Damasc [Euthal-ms Ambrst]. 14. om καθ. κ. vu. nu. Κ. rec om last ἡμων, with ACD [K¢e sil) } L rel goth (Ec : ins ΒΕΜΡΝ m 17 vulg Syr syr-w-ast copt 2th arm Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Antch, Damasc } Ambrst. aft ino. add χριστου D'F MP §&3(but erased) Ὁ m o latt Syr syr-w-ast copt goth eth arm-ed Chr Antch ΤῊ] [Ambrst]. 15. eAdew bef προς υμας DFKL rel Jatt Syr copt goth Chr-ms Thdrt Thl [Ambrst] : txt ABCMPN (a) ἢ m 17 syr [arm Euthal-ms] Chr Damasc.—rec zpos vuas ελθειν heft mporepov, with (K h 47) copt Thdrt: eA@ew mpotepoy προς υμας a [Antch,(ro mp.) |: it may relate only to the longer time, and greater opportunities which he had had at Corinth for shewing his purity of purpose: so Calv., De W. 13, 14. Confirmation of the foregoing assertion. For we do not write to you any other things, except those which ye read, or [even| acknow- ledge (by experience of facts), and I hope, shall [continue to] acknowledge to the end :—i. e. ‘my character in my writings is one and the same, not fickle and chang- ing, but such as past facts have sub- stantiated it to be, and as I hope future facts to the end of my life will continue to do” ἀναγινώσκοντες γὰρ ἐπιγινώσκετε, ὅτι ἃ σύνιστε ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις, ταῦτα καὶ ἐν τοῖς γράμμασι λέγομεν" καὶ οὐκ ἐναντιοῦ- ται ὑμῶν ἣ μαρτυρία ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, ἀλλὰ συνάδει τῇ ἀναγνώσει ἡ γνῶσις, ἣν προλα- βόντες εἴχετε (al. ἔχετε) περὶ ἡμῶν. Chrys., Hom. iii. p. 443, who has the advantage of being able to express in his exposition the play of words in ava- and ἐπι-γινώσκετεις, ΑΒ also ye did partly (that part of you, viz. which have fairly tried me: ἀπὸ μέρους, because they were divided in their estimate of him, and those who were prejudiced against him had shut their minds to this knowledge. Chrys. refers it to what follows: μετριάζων εἶπεν: Theophyl. to the not yet completed testi- mony of his ἐναρέτου Biov: Estius and Calvin, to their inadequate estimation of him, which he blames: but I much preter the above. So most Commentators) ac- knowledge us, that (not ‘because,’ putting a colon at μέρους, as Luth., Griesbach, and Scholz: nor is it to be joined with ἐπιγνώσεσθε, what follows being parenthe- sized, as Theophyl., al., Meyer, Olsh.) we are your boast, [even] as ye [also] are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus. ἐσμεν, ‘present, as of that which is a settled re- cognized fact. its being joined with ἐπιγνώσεσθε, as Olsh. The experimental mutual knowledge of one another as a καύχημα was not confined to what should take place ἐν τῇ jm. τ. κ. Ἰησοῦ, but regarded a present fact, which should receive its full completion at the day of the Lord. 15—24.] His defence uf himself against the charge of fickleness of purpose for not having come to them. 15.| ταύτῃ τῇ TeT., i.e. of my character being known to you as that of an earnest and sincere man. πρότερον belongs to ἐλθεῖν, not to ἐβουλόμην. πρότερον, viz. before he visited Macedonia, where he now was. ἵνα δευτέραν χάριν σχῆτε] that you might have a second benefit (ef- fusion of the divine x&pis by my presence : not=xapav as Chrys., see var. read.). δευτέραν. second, because there would thus have been opportunity for é¢wo visits, one in going towards Macedonia, the other in returning. This is the interpretation of De Wette, Bleek, and Wieseler, and I believe the only one which the words will bear. The other, according to which δευτέραν χάριν would mean ‘a second benefit,’ by my Visiting you for the second time, is in my view unnatural, and would hardly have justified the use of δευτέραν at all. For come when he would, the xdpis of the second visit would be the δευτέρα χάρις, and the conferring a δευτέρα χάρις would have been of no signification in the present connexion, which is to state a purpose of paying them two visits in one and the same journey. The first of these he characterizes by πρότερον .. . €A@eiv,—the second by δευτέρα apis, implying also the first. So But this is no ground for. «.tva M. ABCDF KLdxra bedef ghkim no17.47 15--- 1 8, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. 635 , a \ , a om : ραν χάριν σχῆτε, 16 καὶ τ δι ὑμῶν 7 διελθεῖν ὃ εἰς Maxe- y = here ony. z Acts ix. 32 Ἷ reff. tome: xx. 18, 20. i ͵ ΕΣ Ν nw ral δονίαν, καὶ πάλιν ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς Kat >) lal fol > 5 al i 4 ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν "ἡ προπεμφθῆναι εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν. '7 τοῦτο οὖν {eR χν. oN , me ce» a @ ὮΝ , e 2 , ᾿ Ἃ a Mark ly. 30 Ne βουλόμενος μὴ τι “ἄρα τῇ *éXadpia " ἐχρησάμην ; ἢ Acts xvii. ἃ ,] \ s , “ 5 . «Ve ἃ ‘Boudevopat § κατὰ ὃ σάρκα ' βουλεύομαι, ἵνα ἢ “Tap Bony. . \ Ny) \ ! \ \ j , \ b Act -3 ἐμοὶ TO ἱναὶ ναί, Kat τὸ ἰοὺ ov; 18 Ἐπιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, τεῦ c in interrog., d here only+. (-pos, ch. iy. 17.) Θ᾽ ΞΞ- ch. 10,125, (Cor vii. 21 reff.) fepp., here bis only. Acts y. 33. xxvii. 39. gospp., Luke xiv. 31. John (xi. 53 v. r.) xii. 10 only. Isa. iii. 9 al. g Rom. i. ὃ reff, h = Rom. xii. I6 al. i Matt. v. 87. James v. 12. k — 1 Cor. i. 9 reff. txt ABC(DFL)MP N-corr! m 17 (rel) Jatt syrr goth [arm Euthal-ms] Chr, Damase [Ambrst].—to mporepoy L rel [Antch,] Thl Gc: to δευτερον K: om προτερον XN}. χαραν B L(Tischdf(N. T. ed 7 [and 8])) ῬΝ5 31. 71-3. 80. 115 Thdrt, [Antech, 1. (Chr says: χάριν δὲ ἐνταῦθα τὴν χαρὰν λέγει.) rec exnte ( probably from similarity of sande. There is nothing in what Tischdf (ed 7 {not 81) says against σχῆτε as being conformed to the tense of ἐβουλόμην, seeing that that word may be either imperfect or aor), with ADFKL rel: txt BCP Thdrt, [Euthal-ms Antch, | Damase. 16. δια F(not G). Damasc: «Adew ἃ Ὁ ὁ (ec [proficisci D-lat?| BC D8[-gr] KLN rel vulg [F-lat] syrr Chr, Thdrt Thl [Euthal-ms Ambrst]. _ Rom xv. 28.) for vp, ap D!F b1 0 47 Chr-mss Thdrt-ms, εφ 17. 17. for ουν, δὲ A; vero igitur goth. rec. βουλευόμενος, with DK rel G-lat syrr goth «th arm Thdrt Ambrst: BovAevoouevos L: txt ABCFPR ach mo 17 vulg copt Chr, {Euthal-ms] Damase. om τη F Thdrt. [euov Pbo.] Acts (vii. 1.] xxi. 38. for διελθ., ἀπελθεῖν A D[-gr] F[-gr P arm] copt Chr, : proficiscerer aut transirem G-lat: txt (See that I do not believe this passage to be relevant to the question respecting the number of visits which Paul had made to Corinth previously to writing these Epis- tles. See on that question, Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § v. 16.| If this is the same journey which is announced in 1 Cor. xvi. 5, the idea of visiting them in the way to Macedonia as well as after having passed through it, must have occurred to him subsequently to the sending of that Epis- tle; or may even then have been a wish, but not expressed, from uncertainty as to its possibility,—the main and longer visit being there principally dwelt on. But perhaps the following is the more likely account of the matter. He had announced to them in the lost Epistle (see 1 Cor. v. 9) his intention, as here, of visiting them on his way to Macedonia: but the intel- ligence from ‘‘them of Chloe” had altered his intention, so that, in 1 Cor. xvi., he speaks of visiting them after he should have passed through Macedonia. For this he was accused of levity of purpose. Certainly, some intention of coming to them seems to have been mentioned in that lost Epistle: see 1 Cor. iv. 18. But the προπεμφθῆναι εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν can hardly but be coincident with the alms- bearing scheme of 1 Cor. xvi. 4; in which case the two plans certainly are modifica- tions of one and the same. 17.] py τοὺς Did I at all use levity (of purpose)? τῇ ἐλαφ., as ἡ ἀρετή, ἡ TioTis,—the art. being generic. Olsh., De Wette, Billroth, take it to mean ‘the levity of purpose which has been laid to my charge : Winer, ‘the levity of purpose inherent in human nature. Or those things which I plan, do I plan according to the flesh (1. 6. ac- cording to the changeable, self-contradic- tory, and insincere purposes of the mere worldly and ungodly man), that there may be with me (not, so that there is with me: he is speaking not merely of the re- sult, but of the design: ‘do J plan like the worldly, that I may shift and waver as suits me?’) the Yea, yea, and the Nay, nay (i.e. both affirmation and negation concerning the same thing)? Chrys., Theo- doret, Theophy]l., (c., “Calv., Bengel, Billroth, Winer, al., take it thus: ‘ Or those things which I plan, do I plan after the flesh (as fleshly men do), so that my yea must (at all events) be yea, and my nay, nay ?’ i.e. as worldly men who per- form their promise at all hazards, and whatever the consequences, whereas I am under the guidance of the Spirit, and can only journey whither He permits. But this explanation is directly against the next verse, where val καὶ οὔ is clearly parallel to vat val καὶ od οὔ here, the words being repeated, as in ref. Matt., without altering the sense : and inconsistent with ver. 23 and ch. ii. 1, where he says that his alteration of plan arose from a desire to spare them. See the whole discussed in Stanley’s note. 18.1 Such fickleness, you know, was not my habit in preaching to you. Chrys. gives the connexion well : 634 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. I. 19—24. 4 c , ς al c \ € nw ’ » i \ \ i v leonstr., see 'OTL ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν ὁ πρὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἔστιν ' ναὶ καὶ ‘ov. Rom. xiv. 11. Ξ τ = 9 54 . ε > ΓΝ 9 jaath ait 19 ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ γὰρ υἱὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς χριστὸς ὁ ™év ὑμῖν δι n = Acts vili. 5 reff. o constr., Matt. ὃ ae x. 14. p Acts i. 4 reff. oun eyeveTo ἃ Matt. xix. 18. Mark ix. 23. ἡμῶν ™ κηρυχθείς, δι’ ἐμοῦ καὶ Σιλουανοῦ καὶ Τιμοθέου, ἱναὶ καὶ ‘ov, ἀλλὰ ναὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν" 30 οὅσαι yap P skis Sasa θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ “ τὸ * vat, διὸ καὶ τἀμὴν τῷ θεῷ πρὸς 5 δόξαν δι ἡμῶν. Eph. iv. Ἂν > ~ \ Heb, xii.27. δ’ αὐτοῦ “ τὸ r see Rev. i. xxii. 20. s see Rom. xv. 7,9. ch. iv. 15. viii. 19. 18. om ἡμων L'[insd above the line a prima manu(appy, Tischdf) ]. rec (for ἐστιν) eyeveto (corrn to suit the supposed reference to the past ?), cdefs mpos) 19}. with D[-gr?*]3 KL&3 rel Chr, Thdrt Damase, fuit syrr : [eopt arm Euthal-ms] Thl- -marg [ Ambrst }. txt ABCD!FP®! 17 latt goth 19. rec yap bef του θεου, with D(F)KL rel Chr, Thdrt [Damasc]: txt ABCPS m 17 [(Euthal-ms) |.—om tou F. ἐγένετο, ἐστι C 20. ins του bef θεου A f 0 48. 72. 106 [Mcion-e,(om,)] Thdrt. δι᾽ avrov) και ev avtw, with D?3[-gr] KL rel syr Chr, Thdrt Th) (c: χριστ. bef ina. ACN', om xp. 17. δι’ ἡμων F[-gr], gui per nos D-lat G-lat fuld [Ambrst]. - ins o bef σιλβανου DF. for rec (for διο και και Ov avTou, omg 6:0, D}(and lat) Epiph,(appy) : txt ABCF | O(appy)] PX m 17 vulg G-lat Syr copt goth arm Mcion-e, [ Euthal-ms Thdrt-comm(appy) |] Damasc Pel Fulg Bede. 2nd το N}. over the greek in F.) καλῶς ἀντίθεσιν ἀνακύπτουσαν καταλύει. εἰ γὰρ ὑποσχόμενος, φησί, παραγενέσθαι ὑπερέθου, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι παρά σοι ναί, ναί (predicate in Chrys.’s interpretation ; see above), καὶ οὔ, οὔ, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἃ λέγεις ava- τρέπεις μετὰ ταῦτα, ὥςπερ ἐπὶ τῆς σῆς ἐπιδημίας ἐποίησας" οὐαὶ ἡμῖν, μή ποτε καὶ ἐν τῷ “κηρύγματι τοῦτο γέγονεν. ἵν᾽ οὖν μὴ ταῦτα ἐννοῶσι, μηδὲ θορυβῶνται, φησί: πιστὸς δὲ 6 θεὸς κιτ.λ. p. 446. πιστ. δὲ ὃ θ., ὅτι] a form of asseveration : see reff. The δέ follows on the denial of the preceding question. ὁ λόγ.] Our doctrine (which we preached, cf. 6 λόγος 6 τοῦ σταυροῦ, 1 Cor. i. 18), to you is not (present, inasmuch as the cha- racter of the doctrine was present and abiding. The pres. has been altered in rec. to the easier ἐγένετο) yea and nay (i. e. inconsistent with itself). 19. | Confirmation of the last verse, by affirming the same of the great Subject of that doc- trine, as set before them by Paul and his colleagues. χριστός, personal—not for ‘ doctrina de Christo’—H®r HIMSELF is the centre and substance of all Christian preaching : see 1 Cor. i. 28, and note at ii. 2. ὁ Tov θεοῦ vids is prefixed for solemnity, and to shew how unlikely fickle- ness or change is in Christ, being such as He is. Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 29, ‘the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent.’ Σιλουανοῦ) so 1 Pet. v. 12; = Silas, see Acts xviii. 5 and al. He names his com- panions, as shewing that neither was he inconsistent with himself, nor were they inconsistent with one another. The Christ vas the same, whether preached by dif- ferent persons or by one person at dif- om aft dofay ins και τιμὴν F. (not vulg nor F-lat, but honorem per nos om & (bef nuwv) CLIO} vulg. ferent times. ἀλλὰ val ἐν air. yey-] ‘Christus predicatus, i.e. preedi- catio nostra de Christo, facta est nee in Ipso Christo.” Bengel. This seems to me far better than with De Wette, al., to make ναί the subject, and γέγονεν pre- dicatory. The absence of the art. before vai, as well as the sense, stamps it as the predicate. ‘Christ preached as the Son of God by us, has become yea in Him,’ i.e. has been affirmed and substantiated as verity by the agency of the Lord Him- self. 20.] ὅσαι yap... is an inde- pendent relative clause, as in ref.,—not the subject answering to ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ vai as a predicate, as Εἰ. V.:—For how many so- ever be the promises of God, in Him is the yea (the affirmation and fulfilment of them all); wherefore also through Him is the Amen, for glory to God by our (the Apostles’) means. This reading, which hus the stronger external authority, may have arisen from an idea that the clause had reference to the Amen uttered at the end of prayers. So Theodoret, οὗ δὴ χάριν καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸν THs εὐχαριστίας αὐτῷ mpuspepouev ὕμνον, from which com- ment De Wette thinks the reading has sprung. The apparent objection to it is, that then ἡμῶν must mean ἡμῶν καὶ ὑμῶν, which without notice it perhaps could hardly do. In the next verse, when such i is about | to be its meaning, we have first ͵ἧμᾶς σὺν ὑμῖν, and then in ver. 22, ἡμᾶς. .. ἡμῶν in the general sense: but here, without any such piss paratory notice, δ’ ἡμῶν must signify ‘by means of us Apostles,’ ‘by our work in the Lord.” Thus ἀμήν will be merely a [O av- του.. ABC DF KL[O] om o (bef Prab hklim nol7,47 Ἧς 1. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 635 9] e δὲ { lal e “ \ e an > \ \ u , 21 ὁ δὲ " βεβαιῶν ἡμᾶς σὺν ὑμῖν εἰς χριστὸν καὶ " χρίσας tom. αν. 8 ε al / 99 ¢e \ ΄ ς a \ , \ ote 9 ἡμᾶς θεός, * ὁ καὶ ᾿ σφραγισάμενος ἡμᾶς καὶ ™ δοὺς 5 Actsiv. 27 ᾿ F228 a a ΄, Ἵ tal δί ἔα κε vy = John vi. τὸν "ἀῤῥαβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος “ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν. " Ὁ Eph i. 93°? \ \ / \ \ Zs A Pg ee \ 13. iv. 3U. 3 ᾿Εγὼ δὲ ἡ μάρτυρα τὸν θεὸν * ἐπικαλοῦμαι * ἐπὶ τὴν see Rev. vit ἐξ ‘ / 2 , ς lal / , 2. ἐμὴν ψυχήν, ὅτι ὃ φειδόμενος ὑμῶν οὐκέτι ἦλθον εἰς Ko- ye si. 16 &c. Dan. 6 24.¢,” ew d ΄ erica n , reff. Ezek. ρινθον. οὐχ “ὅτι “ κυριεύομεν ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως, χχανὶ,38. ΄ A a a A a ac ἀλλὰ © συνεργοί ἐσμεν τῆς χαρᾶς ὑμῶν: τῇ yap !miater EPhN 8 ς / é 1 ἢ ἢ 24 ὃ ἌΡ Ὸ oe) 2 a : oe \ xxxviil. 17, EOTIKATE . Explva € EUaAUTD TOUTO, TO ΜΉ 18,20 only. ν y Rom. i. 9 reff. z = here only. see Acts xxv. 11 al. a = Luke ix. 5. ce — John vi. 46. ch. iii. 5. Phil. iii. 12. iv. 11,17. e Rom. xvi. 3 reff. constr., here only. ΠΞΞ Acts xx.U6. 1 Cor. 11, 2. ν. 3. vil. 37. reff. Tit. ii. 14. Acts xiii. 51. 2 Thess. iii. 9 only. f dat., Acts xxi. 21. Tit, 11, 12. al. 2 Macc, xi. 25. k so Rom, xiv. 13. 1 Pet. ii. 19. 2 Pet. iii. 8. b Rom. xi. 21 reff. d Rom. vi. 9, 14 reff. g = Rom. v.2. 1 Cor. xv. 1. i dat., Rom. xiv. 7 lart., Rom. xiv. 13 al. 21. υμας συν ἡμιν Cadosyr: vuas συν υμιν B 115: nos nobiscum F-lat, so also b! [ Ps-Just, }. ins o bef καὶ xpioas D}. for 2nd ynuas, vuas Β]. 22. om 6 ACIK PX! ae mo 17 Syr(appy) copt goth Ps-Just Did Chr Damase: καὶ bef ὃ F [am fuld spec] tol demid [ Ambr, ]. apaBwva [A](F)LX& m [47]; -Bova FP. 23. for οὐκετι, οὐκ ΕἸ ποῦ F-lat] latt Syr copt goth (eth). 24. της πιστεως bef vuwy DF ἃ latt Ambrst Aug. Cuap. II. 1. for δε, re D'[-gr] eth: yap Β m 17 syr copt. strengthening of vai—the affirmation and completion of God’s promises. 21, 22.] construction as in ch. v. 5, which in form is remarkably similar ; 21.) 6 δὲ BeB. ... ἡμᾶς is the (prefixed) predicate, and θεός the subject. βεβ. εἰς χριστόν = βεβ. τῇ πίστει εἰς χριστόν, confirmeth us (in believing) on Christ. χρίσας ἡμᾶς, after ἥμ. σὺν ὑμῖν and the καί, cannot refer (as Meyer, al.) to any anointing of the Apostles only, but must be taken, as Chrys., al., of αὐ, Apostles and Corinthians. —6puod προφήτας κ. ἱερεῖς κ. βασιλεῖς ἐργαζόμενος" ταῦτα γὰρ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐχρίετο τὰ γένη. Chrys., Ρ. 448. See 1 John ii. 20. “Observe the connexion of χριστός and χρίσας." Stanley. 22.) copay. again cannot refer to the Apostles alone, nor is ref. John any ground for such a refer_ ence,—but as in the other N. T. reff., to all,—sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day of redemption. καὶ δοὺς... .7 ‘ And assured us of the fact of that sealing :’ see Rom. viii. 16. τ. app. τ. πν.] the pledge or token of the Spirit: genitive of apposition: the Spirit ἐς the token. ἀῤῥ., mpddoua, Hesych. :—% ἐπὶ tats vais παρὰ τῶν ὠνουμένων διδομένη προκαταβολὴ ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας, Etymol. in Wetst., where see examples. “It is remarkable that the same word jin, is used in the same sense in Gen. xxxviii. 17, 18, from IY, to ‘mix’ or ‘exchange,’ and thence to ‘pledge,’ as Jer. xxx. 21; Neh. νυ. 8. It was therefore probably derived by the Greeks from the language of Phcenician traders, as ‘ tariff,’ ‘ cargo,’ are derived, in English and other modern languages, from Spanish traders.” Stanley. 23, 24. | His reason for not coming to them. 23. ἐπὶ.... ψυχ.] against my soul,— ‘cum maximo meo malo, si fallo.’? Grot. φειδόμενος tp. | sparing you,—out of a feeling of compassion for you. οὐκέτι, ‘no more,’ viz. after the first time: see Prolegg. to1 Cor. ὃ v. 6. The follow- ing οὐχ ὅτι κυρ. seems to be added to remove any false inference which might have been drawn from φειδόμενος as seem- ing to assert an unreasonable degree of power over them. But why ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως ? He had power over them, but it was in matters of discipline, not of faith : over matters of faith not even an Apostle has power (‘ fides enim prorsus ab hominum jugo soluta liberrimaque esse debet.’ Calv.), seeing it isin each man’s faith that he stands before God. Andhe puts this strongly, that in matters of faith he is only a fellow-helper of. their joy (the χαρὰ ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν, Rom, xv. 13), in order to shew them the real department of his apostolic power, and that, however exercised, it would not attempt to rule their faith, but only to secure to them, by purifying them, joy in believing. He proceeds to say, that it was the probable disturbance of this joy, which induced him to forego his visit. τῇ πίστει, dat. of the state or condition in which: cf. Rom. xi. 20. So Polyb. xxi. 9. 3, ἔστη τῇ διανοίᾳ. Cuap. II. 1—4.] FuRTHER EXPLANA-~ TION ON THE REASON OF THE POSTPONE-~ MENT OF HIS VISIT. 1.] δέ is merely transitional, and does not imply any con- trast with what has preceded. ἐμαυτῴ, not=7ap ἐμαυτῷ (as most Commentators: and E. V.), but ‘dat. commodi,’ for my own sake, as is evident by the considera. 636 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS Ὁ: / 7 " r ww m=1Cor.iv. πάλιν ™ ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν. 21 το a ὦ Ξ ἢ 5 ᾿ nMatt.xix. ὑμᾶς, ο καὶ τίς ὁ Ῥ εὐφραίνων με εἰ μὴ ο " λυπούμενος ἐξ vy. 15 al ~ \ Yj lal Σ Ui δ \ \ 3 κει τε ἐμοῦ ; 3 καὶ ἔγραψα ' τοῦτο "αὐτό, ἵνα μὴ ἐλθὼν " λύπην iit). Eph 8 » tad ὧν ἃ ξὸὃ / ν θὰ mS ; S(t) a ap ὧν " ἔδει pe χαίρειν, ᾿ πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας Job xxxi. 39. o interrog., 1 Cor. v. 2 reff. see Phil. i. 22. 1. Lanes 27 only. t constr., Phil. iv. 11. rec eAGew bef ev λυπη, with copt eth: eA@ew bef προς vuas DF latt Syr (goth) arm Chr, ΤῊ] [Ambr, Ambrst]: txt ABCKL[O]PR® rel syr [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc. 2. (ε in εἰ is written over the line, and o inserted before λυπω but erased, by &!.) rec aft καὶ Tis ins ἐστιν, with DF KL[O]PN3 rel latt Orig,(-int,) Chr, [Cyr-p, ] Thdrt : om ABCN! copt [Euthal-ms] Damascg. : 3. rec aft εγραψα ins vu, with C3DFKLN? rel latt syrr goth eth [arm ?] Chr, Thdrt Pel: om ABC!(O]PN! 17 am copt [Euthal-ms] Damasce,{ins, ] Ambrst. bef τουτο CLO Euthal-ms] Chr, ΤῊ] : om αὐτὸ A copt arm Damase,/txt,]: txt BDF KL[P]® rel [latt goth Thdrt Ambrst]}. Pel. tion in the next verse. τοῦτο refers to what follows: see reff. τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν) not again to come to you in grief. This is the only fair rendering of the words; im- plying, that some former visit had been in grief. Clearly the first visit Acts xviii. 1 ff., could not be thus described: we must therefore infer, that an intermediate unrecorded visit had been paid by him. On this subject, compare ch. xii. 14; xiii. 1 and notes: and see Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § v. ἐν λύπῃ is explained in vv. 2, 3 to mean (so Estius, Bengel, Riickert, Olsh., De Wette, al.) in mutual grief: ‘1 grieving you (ver. 2), and you grieving me’ (ver. 3): not, as Chrys., al., Paul’s grief alone, nor, as Meyer, al., grief inflicted on them by Paul. 2.) yap, reason why I would not come to you in grief: because I should have to grieve those who formed my proper material for thank- fulness and joy. ἐγώ has a peculiar emphasis : ‘ If 7 cause you grief’... . im- plying, ‘there are who cause you sufficient.’ kat prefixed to a question denotes inconsequence on, or inconsistency with, the foregoing supposition or affirmation : so Eur. Med. 1388, ὦ τέκνα φίλτατα! “untpl ye, σοὶ δ᾽ ov.” κἄπειτ᾽ ἔκτας ; see other examples in Hartung, Partikel- lehre, i. p. 147. It is best expressed in English by ‘ then :’? who is he then, Xc. as in E, V. The explanation of Chrys., who has been followed by Erasm., Bengel, Olsh., al., is curious, and certainly incon- sistent with the context: εἰ καὶ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, χάριν μοι παρέχετε κἂν τούτῳ μεγίστην, ὅτι δάκνεσθε ὑπὸ τῶν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ λεγομέ- νων. Hom. iv. p. 456. Some of these p Acts vii. 41 reff. act., here only. Prov. xv. 20. r see Acts xxiv. 15, 20. xxv. 25. ch. vii. 11 al. y i Pet. ii. 12. iii. 16. Ezek. xiv. 4. v constr., Matt. xxvii. 43. 2 Thess. iii. 4. νυ. dat., ch. 1. 9 reff. aft λυπὴν ins em λυπὴν (see Phil ii. 27) DF a latt syr-w-ast [ Euthal-ms]} Pel. rec exw, with CDFKLN? rel Thdrt Damasc: txt AB[O]PN! a ἃ 17 Chr, {Euthal-ms] Thi. (See var read, ch i. 15, Phil ii. 27.) ἘΞ 2 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ ™ AUTO Ὁ ΞΞ οἷ. s John xvi. 21,22. Phil. ii. Ὁ Acts xxvii. 21. om με - auTo tovto αὐτο bef eypava DF latt goth eth for ag’, ep’ de F [vulg Pel]. Commentators refer the singular to the offender, vv. 5—8. But however the words may bear the meaning, and how- ever true the saying might be, it is pretty clear that it would be beside the subject: nay, would give a reason the other way,—why he should come to them. 8.1 ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτό. I put in writing this same thing, viz. the τοῦτο which I ἔκρινα, ver. 1: the announcement of my change of purpose in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, which had occasioned the charge of fickleness against him. The theories of Commenta- tors have given rise to various interpreta- tions of τοῦτο αὐτό: Chrys. understands, ch. xii. 21 of this same Epistle :—Beza, Meyer, al., my blame of you in the first Epistle :—so Estius, especially 1 Cor. iv. 19, 21:—Bleek supposes a lost Epistle to be referred to: De Wette wavers, but is disposed with Erasm., Riickert, al., to ren- der αὐτὸ τοῦτο ‘on this account,’ as Plato, Protag. p. 310, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὰ ταῦτα καὶ νῦν ἥκω : but Meyer rejoins, that this idiom is foreign to the style of Paul. I imagine that two meanings are open tous: (1) as above, the announcement which caused the charge of fickleness: (2) the reproaches in the 1st Epistle which grieved them. Of these, specious as is the latter on account of the following context, I prefer the for- mer because of the τοῦτο in ver. 1. ad’ ὧν, ellipt. for ἀπὸ τούτων, ag’ ὧν, sce reff. πεποιθὼς... .1 having trust in (reposing trust on) you all, that my joy is (the pres. expressing the purport of the trust when felt) that of all of you: i.e. trusting that you too would feel that there was sufficient reason for the postponement, if it interfered with cur mutual joy. 2—7. σι \ \ “ ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἡ ἐμὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐστιν. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΒΙΝΘΕΘΈΣΊΒ. 637 w 2? 5) 4 εκ yap w = 1 Cor. vii. re = A , > a 5 . πολλῆς θλίψεως καὶ * συνοχῆς καρδίας ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ¥ διὰ x Luke ταὶ. 55 only. Job xxx. 3. a / b) vA Ζ coe > \ \ » / πολλῶν δακρύων, οὐχ Wa* λυπηθῆτε, ἀλλὰ ὃ τὴν ἀγάπην vat iva γνῶτε ἣν ἔχω ὃ περισσοτέρως © 3 \ ΤᾺ 5 “λελύπηκεν, οὐκ ἐμὲ 5 λελύπηκεν, ἀλλὰ ἃ ἀπὸ 4 μέρους, 6 Γ ἱκανὸν ὃ τῷ δ τοιούτῳ ἡ μὴ " ἐπιβαρῶ, πάντας ὑμᾶς. h > / Ὁ“ e j 6 \ k ἐπιτιμία αὕτη ἡ | ὑπὸ Ὁ ch. i. 12 reff. e 1 Thess. ii.9. 2 Thess. iii. 8 only +. reff. h here only +. ii, 22. k 1 Cor. ix. 19 reff. . wa yore bef τὴν ayarny F |. Op Meyer well observes, that πάντας ὑμᾶς, in spite of the existence of an anti-pauline faction in the Corinthian church, is a true example of the love which πάντα πιστεύει, πάντα ἐλπίζει, 1 Cor. xiii. 7. 4.) Ex- planation (γάρ) that he did not write in levity of purpose, but under great trouble of mind,—not to grieve them, but to testify his love. ἐκ, of the inducement— διά, of the condition: he wrote, out of much tribulation (inward, of spirit, not outward) and anguish (συνοχή, ‘angustie’) of heart, with (q. ‘through,’—the state being the vehicle of the action, see reff.) many tears. τ. ἀγάπην, before the conjunction tva, for special emphasis: see reff. mepracotépws—‘ than to other churches (?)’—so Chrys. (referring to 1 Cor. iv. 15; ix. 2), Theophyl.: Estius thinks, the comparative is not to be pressed, but understood as [some take thie adjective] in ver. 7,—‘ exceedingly.’ d—11.] DIGRESSIVE REFERENCE TO THE CASE OF THE INCESTUOUS PERSON, WHOM THE APOSTLE ORDERS NOW TO BE FORGIVEN, AND REINSTATED. From the λύπη of the former verses, to him who was one of the principal occasions of that grief, the transition is easy. 5, | δέ, transi- tional. Now if any one hath occasioned sorrow (a delicate way of pointing out the one who had occasioned it), he hath grieved, not me (not,—‘ not only me,’ which destroys the meaning,—‘ J am not the aggrieved person, but you’), but, [in part (i.e. ] more or less, partially :’ ret.), that I be not too heavy on him (refers to ἀπὸ μέρους, which qualifies the blame cast on the offender), all of you. The above punctuation and rendering is adopted by Chrys. (ἵνα uh βαρήσω ἐκεῖνον τὸν πορνεύ- σαντα, p. 459), Beza, Calvin (but not in his ¢ext), al., with Meyer, De Wette. But Theodoret, Vulg., Luther, Bengel, Wetst., al., join ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας bu., thus: ‘he hath τῶν πλειόνων, 7 ὥςτε ' τοὐναν- ce Acts xx. 21. xxiv. 24. ch. i. 11 al. f Luke xxii. 38. Wisd, iii. 10 only. (adda, so ABCL[OJPR rel [exe 17].) om 7 vT0 των πλειονων F(not F-lat) seth-rom. , , 27 reff. 5 Ke δέ τις 27Tim. ". 2. Pe z ver. 2 reff. a arrangt. of wa words, John Acts els ὑμᾶς. xiii. 25 xix. 4. Rom. xi. 31. 1, Cor. ix. 15. xiv.9. Gal. ii. 10. d Rom. xi. 25 reff. Gen. xxx. 15. g Acts xxii. 22 (-cov, 2 Mace. vi. 13.) i ellips., see 2 Pet. 1Gal. ii. 7. 1 Pet. iii. 9 only+. 3 Mace. iii. 22. for eis, προς F. επιβαρων F. not grieved me (alone and principally) but only in part (having grieved you also), that I may not lay the fault on all of you,’ which I should in this case do, by making myself the only person aggrieved, and classing you with the offender. But this can hardly be; ἀλλά must be εἰ μή. Another way is adopted by Mosheim, Bill- roth, and Olsh.,—to join πάντας with ἵνα μὴ emiB.,—‘ but in part,—that I burden not all,—you :᾿ ---ἐπιβαρῶ being variously understood, either (1) of including you in the blame of the offender, or (2) as Olsh., of extending to them all the burden of this sorrow ;—he supposes it to be ironically spoken ; their highest praise would have been that all had been troubled. . But as Meyer remarks, irony is entirely out of place in this part of the Epistle. The mean- ings are well discussed in Stanley. 6. | ἱκανόν, sc. either ἐστιν or ἔστω. τῷ τοιούτῳ) Meyer remarks on the expression as being used in mildness, not to designate any particular person: but the same desig- nation is employed in 1 Cor. v. 5, παρα- δοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ. ἢ ἐπιτ. αὕτη) This punishment (= ἐπι- τίμιον, see retf.): what it was, we are un- able with certainty to say; but 1 Cor. v. seems to point to excommunication as form- ing at least a partof it. But it was nota formal and public, only a voluntary indivi- dual abstinence from communion with him, as is shewn by ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων : the anti-pauline party probably refusing com- pliance with the Apostle’s command. ἱκανόν] enough, not in duration, though that would be the case, but in magnitude: sufficient, as having produced its desired effect, penitence. 7.] so that (con- seq. on ἱκανόν) on the contrary you (should) [rather (than continue the pun- ishment)] forgive and comfort him, &c. Meyer denies that δεῖν should be supplied, and makes ὥςτε depend immediately on 638 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. ΤΙ. ς - / \ m = Luke vi τίον μᾶλλον] vuas ™ “χαρίσασθαι γῶν Oe παρακαλέσαι, ABCDF KL[O xii 18, Gol. © μὴ οστως τῇ P ἘΠῚ ἢ ἘΠ λύπῃ q καταποθῇ 88 τοιοῦτος. PN ων is). L.P. cedelg (ιν ρα) 8 διὸ ᾿παρακαλῷ ὑμᾶς " κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγώπην. 9" εἰς heim n= Lae 4, ἄς. an \ Ne ἂν “ a \ u 5 ‘ ce oer >nol7.47 ret 4, TOUTO yap καὶ ἔγραψα, Wa γνῶ τὴν " δοκιμὴν ὑμῶν, εἰ ΄ , / 9 - , , pe πακαη, Y εἰς πάντα ἡ ὑπήκοοί ἐστε. 10 ᾧ δέ Te™ χαρίζεσθε, κἀγώ: 40 |i L. 1 Cor. \ \ Bre N Oe ἢ ΄ A! x 4 δι ἡμμ xii.23t. Καὶ γὰρ εγὼ Ὁ " κεχάρισμαι, εἰ τι * κεχάρισμαι, OL υμᾶς, (36) Theod. 2 ͵ a ae ὙΦ a etn a Cor. od Yeu ἡ πρρουξώπῳ χριστοῦ, | ἵνα μὴ * πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ n la) 5 x > lal \ , > lal r=w.inf, τοῦ σατανᾶ" οὐ γὰρ αὑτοῦ τὰ “ VonmaTa > ἀγνοοῦμεν. ll. al. 2 iat, iv. 34. s Gal. iii. 15 only. Gen. xxiii. 20. Levit. xxv. 30 only. t Rom. xiv. 9 reff. u Rom. v. 4 reff. v =: ch. viii. 23. ix. 8. Gal. v. 10 al. w Acts vii. 39 reff. * a signif., Acts xxvii. 24. Gal. iii. 18. 2 Mace. ii. 33. vil. 2. xii. 17, 18. only. P.+ Baruch ii. 8 only. 7. om μαλλον AB Syr Aug, 1 Thess. iv. 6 only. P. Ezek. xxii. 27. b Acts xili. 27. : ins CKL[O]PR® rel syr copt arm Chr Thdrty;, Damase y ch. iv. 6. Prov. viii. 30. see note. a ch. iii. 14, iv. 4. x. 5, xi. 3. Phil. ik "a Thi Ke ['Tert, ] Ambrst, and aft vuas DF goth Thdrt,. 9. aft eypaya ins oa (vuwv(sic) vobis F and G) 31 copt eth Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Pel. ins παντων bef vuwy F(not F-lat). for εἰ, ἡ (7?) AB 17. 10. rec καὶ eyw, with ΟἹ Εἰ K[e sil} LX%4 rel Thdrt: txt ABC?D[O]PN! a m 17. 47 Epiph, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Damasc. with D?KL rel syr Thdrt ΤῊ] (Ec: Ambrst.—om 6 D![-gr ‘enough, for you to forgive and console him.’ τῇ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ] not, as E. V., ‘by overmuch sorrow: but (as Meyer), by the increase of sorrow which will come on the continuance of his punishment. καταποθῇ does not set any definite result of the excessive sorrow before them, such as apostasy or suicide, but leaves them to imagine such possible. 8.1 κυρῶσαι, hardly (as usually un- derstood) to ratify by a public decree of the church: if (see above) his exclusion was not by such a decree, but only by the abstinence of individuals from his society, the ratifying their love to him would con- sist in the majority making it evident to him that he was again recognized as a bro- ther. 9.1 Reason why they should now be ready to shew love to him again,— the end of Paul’s writing to them having been accomplished by their obeying his order. For to this end I also wrote: the καί signifying that my former epistle, as well as my present exhortation, tended to this, viz. the testing your obedience. Meyer (ed. 2) explains the καί as imply- ing that other orders to the same effect were sent by word of mouth. He alludes beyond doubt to the former Epistle, ch. v. Yet theancient Commentators, Chrys., &e., and Erasm., Wolf, Bengel, al. (not Olsh., as De Wette says), interpret it of this Epistle: which certainly is gram- matically allowable (see 1 Cor. v. 9, note), but opposed to the context (see vy. 3, 4, besides the manifest sense here, that the object of his writing had been accom- plished). That I might know the proof of you, whether in all things (emphatic) ixavov,— om eyw A. txt ABC(D')F[O](P)® latt [Euthal-ms] Damase goth) | (zth-pl): ὦ DP m g?(perhaps). rec εἰ τι κεχαρ. @ κεχαρ., yeare obedient. This was that one among the various objects of his first Epistle, which belonged to the matter at present in hand, and which he therefore puts for- ward: not by any means implying that he had no other view in writing it. 10. } Another assurance to encourage them in forgiving and reinstating the penitent ;— that they need not be afraid of lack of apostolic authority or confirmation of their act from above—he would ratify their forgiveness by his sanction. ῳ δὲ... ‘Your forgiveness is mine:’ not said gene- rally (as Meyer), but definitely, pointing at the one person here spoken of and no other. Kayo, scil. χαρίζομαι. Then he substantiates this assurance, by further assuring them, that his forgiveness of any fault in this case, if it takes place, takes place on their account. Meyer’s (former: now (4th edn.) abandoned) and Riickert’s rendering of kexaptopat as passive, dis- turbs the whole sense of the passage, be- sides being inconsistent with the N.T. usage of the word, see reff. ἐν ™pos- ὦπῳ Χριστοῦ] either ‘in the presence of Christ, as in ref. Prov. (compare Matt. xxi. 42),—so Theodoret, Erasm., Beza, Calv., Olsh., De W.,—or, and far better, in the person of Christ, acting as Christ, in the same way as he had commanded the punishment ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, 1 Cor. ν. 4: so Vulg., Estius (who argues the matter at some length), Wetst., al. 11. ἵνα μὴ . . .} follows out the δι buas—to prevent Satan getting any advantage over us (the Church generally: or better, ws Apostles), in robbing us of some of our people,—viz. in causing the 8—]4. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 639 ᾽ ΄ a 2 ᾿λθὼν δὲ εἰς τὴν Τρωάδα " εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον TOD « Acts τιν. “τ. Cor. xvi. 9. Bets Ti; 12, 0. | {... μακε- n \ , / > / χριστοῦ, Kat “ θύρας μοι ὃ ἀνεωγμένης ἐν κυριῳ, 15 ἢ Col. iv. 3. OUK Rey. iii. 8. Isa. xlv,1. ” ” an / / an x ς a 4 ἔσχηκα “ἄνεσιν ἱστῷ πνευμᾶτι μου, ὅτῳ μὴ εὑρεῖν με ach.i.9. vis. , \ ' δ 5) . a Titov τὸν ἀδελφόν μου: ἀλλὰ ” ἀποταξάμενος ἱ αὐτοῖς, e Acts χχῖν. 23 reff. f Acts xvii. 16 me Pies Ξ. Ὁ ͵ / A \ a / A Κ ἐξῆλθον κΚ εἰς Μακεδονίαν. 13 Τῷ δὲ θεῷ | χάρις τῷ pccakldney WT ™ θριαμβεύοντε ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ D ὶ τὴν Xen. Cyr Xen. Cyr. iv. TWAVTOTE Play aS V Τῷ χρίστῳ και Τὴν 5.9. Winer: edn. 6, } 44. 5. h Acts xviii. 18 reff. i Acts viii. 5 reff. k = Acts xi. 25 reff. 1 Rom. vi. 17 reff. m Col. ii. 15 only +. 12. δια το ευαγγελιον F Damasc : latt [ Ambrst ]. jie [om] αὐτο ι]ς K. penitent offender to despair and fall away from the faith. Chrys. remarks: mAcov- εξίαν εἰκότως ἐκάλεσεν, ὅταν καὶ διὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων κρατῇ. τὸ γὰρ δι’ ἁμαρτίας λαμβάνειν, ἴδιον αὐτῷ ἐστι; τὸ μέντοι διὰ μετανοίας, οὐκέτι" ἡμέτερον γάρ, οὐκ ἐκείνου, τὸ ὅπλον. p.462. The word has yet another propriety : the offender was to be delivered over τῷ σατανᾷ cis ὄλεθρον τῆς capKds— care must be taken lest we πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ σ., and his soul perish likewise. οὐ γὰρ... .] αὐτοῦ before τὰ νοήμ. for emphasis :—such devices, as coming from him, are special matters of observa- tion and caution to every Christian minis- ter; much more to him who had the eare of all the churches. See 1 Pet. v. 8. The personality and agency of the Adver- sary can hardly be recognized in plainer terms than in both these passages. 12—17.] He PRoceEDs (after the di- gression) TO SHEW THEM WITH WHAT ANXIETY HE AWAITED THE INTELLIGENCE FROM CORINTH, AND HOW THANKFUL HE W4S FOR THE SEAL OF HIS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY FURNISHED BY IT. The only ‘legitimate connexion is that with vv. 1—4. δέ serves to resume the main sub- ject after parenthetical matter: so Herod. Vill. 67,---ἐπεὶ ὧν ἀπίκατο ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας πάντες οὗτοι πλὴν Παρίων" Παρίοι δὲ ὑπολειφθέντες ἐν Κύθνῳ ἐκαραδόκεον τὸν πόλεμον KH ἀποβήσεται: οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ὡς ἀπίκοντο ἐς τὸ Φάληρον, κιτ.ιλ. See Har- tung, Partikellehre, i. 174. 12.| To Troas, viz. on his journey from Ephesus, Acts xx.1, 2; 1 Cor. xvi.5—9. “The art. perhaps indicates the region of ‘the Troad,” rather than the city.” Stanley. cis τὸ evayy. τ. xp.] for (the purpose of preach- ing) the Gospel of Christ. He had been before at Troas, but the vision of a Mace- donian asking for help prevented his re- maining there. He now revisited it, pur- posely to stay and preach. On his return to Asia he remained there seven days, Acts xx. 6—12. kai θύρας... . and an Gpportunity of apostolic action being dia Tov ευαγγελιου D[-gr]: propter evangelium και Bupa μοι ἣν ewyuevn Β' : qvewy. DP. 13. for 2nd τω, του C*N!: τὸ ΠΡ fl! mu [Euthal-ms]: ev τω D 17. ευρισκειν afforded me; ἐν κυρίῳ defines the sort of action implied, and to which the door was opened. It is remarkable that in speaking of this journey, though not of the same place, Paul uses this expression, 1 Cor. xvi. 9. Compare the interesting passage at Troas on his return from Europe the next spring, Acts xx. 6—18. 13. ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν) perf. in the sense of aorist, as ch. i. 9. Ihad not rest for my spirit (not, “im my spirit :? compare οὐχ εὑροῦσα ἡ περιστερὰ ἀνάπαυσιν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῆς, Gen. viii. 9). He could not with any tranquillity prosecute the spiritual duties opened to him at Troas. τῷ μὴ €vp. | by (reason of) my not finding: see reff. Paul had sent Titus to Corinth, ch. xii. 18, partly to finish the collection for the saints, but principally to bring intelligence respecting the effect of the first Epistle. Probably it had been fixed that they should meet at Troas. τ. ἀδελ. μου implies a relation closer than merely that of Chris- tian brotherhood—my colleague in the Apostleship. αὐτοῖς} the disciples there: understood from the context. 14—17.] Omitting, as presupposed, the fact of his having met with Titus in Mace- donia, and the nature of the intelligence which he brought,—he grounds on these a thanksgiving for that intelligence, and a magnification of his apostolic office. Itis evidently beside the purpose to refer this thanksgiving to the diffusion of the gospel in Macedonia (as Flatt), or in Troas (as Emmerling), or to general considerations (as Bengel) :-—both the context, and the language itself (see below), shew that its reference is to the effects of the apostolic reproof on the Corinthians. 14. θριαμ- βεύοντι] leading us in triumrh, see ref. Two kinds of persons were led in triumph: the participators of the victory, and the victims of the defeat. In Col. the latter are plainly meant; here, according to many Commentators (Calv., Elsner, Bengel, De Wette, al.), the former : which however is never elsewhere the reference of the word, 64.0 ΠΡΟΣ. KOPINOIOTS B. 11. 15—17. ο Ρ δι τ here 3ce. " ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ φανεροῦντι b John xii. 3. 15 ss ἐπ ἢ et παντὶ τόπω. 9 ὅτι χριστοῦ 4 εὐωδία ἐσμὲν τῷ θεῷ * ull. lv. * -“ ~ / \ 3 rad / only. Exod. too ὃ σωζομένοις καὶ ‘ev τοῖς ἴ ἀπολλυμένοις, 16 u o gen. object. 7 > ΄ e τιν χ ὃ. μὲν "ὀσμὴ ἐκ θανάτου " εἰς θάνατον, “ois δὲ "Oopn ἐκ Pp om. i. eff. q Eph. v.2. Phil. iv. 18 only. Ezra vi. 10. r = 1 Cor. ii. 6. s 1 Cor. xv. 2 reff. t Rom. li. 12 reff. ul Cor. xi. 21 reff. v= Acts’ xi. 18. Rom. v. 16 refi. 14, (s of της is written over the line by 8? or -corr!.) 16. oounv (twice) D{-gr]. Thart, ΤῊ] Ge Iren[-int, rec om ex (twice), with DFKL rel latt arm (Chr, a Ambrst Augsepe | : ins ABCN τὰ 17. 47[150] copt [goth" (2nd) | eth Clem, Orig,(-int,) Dial, Nys [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms] Hil,. but it always implies triuvmphare de aliquo. Wetst. quotes this sense, βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμ- Bevoe, Plut. Rom. p. 38 D, and in four other places :—and the Scholiast to Hor. Od. i. 37. 31, who relates of Cleopatra, ‘“‘invidens Privata deduci superbo Non humilis mulier triumpho,” that she refused the terms of- fered her by Augustus, saying, ov θριαμ- βευθήσομαι. Meyer in consequence under- stands it in this sense here: who ever triumphs over us, i.e. ‘ who ceases not to exhibit us, His former foes, as overcome by Him: *—and adds in a note, “ Remark the emphatic πάντοτε, prefixed, to which the similarly emphatic ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, at the end, corresponds. God vegan His triumph over the ἡμεῖς at their conversion ;—over Paul, at Damascus, where he made him a servant, from being an enemy. This tri- umph he ever continues, not ceasing to exhibit before the world these His former foes, by the results of their present service, as overcome by Him. This, in the case before us, was effected by Paul, in that (as ‘Titus brought him word to Macedonia) his Epistle had produced such good results in Corinth.” De W. objects to this as a strange way of expressing thankfulness for deliverance from our anxiety. Butis it so to those who look beneath the surface ? In our spiritual course, our only true triumphs are, God’s triumphs over us. His defeats of us, are our only real vic- tories. J own that this yet appears to me to be the only admissible rendering. We must not violate the known usage of a word, and invent another for which there is no precedent, merely for the sake of imagined perspicuity. Such is that of ‘to make to triumph’ (Beza, Estius, Grot., al.) :---μαθητεύειν, Matt. xxviii. 19, and βασιλεύειν, 1 Kings viii. 22, are not cases in point, their sense being, to ‘make a disciple,’ ‘to make a king,’—whereas that required for θριαμβεύειν, would be, “ἐγὶ- umphatorem facere.’ χορεύειν, for ‘to make to dance,’ is more to the point : οὔπω καταπαύσομεν μούσας, αἵ μ᾽ ἐχόρευσαν, Eur. Here. Fur. 688,---τάχα σ᾽ ἐγὼ μᾶλλον χορεύσω, ib. 879 :—but the Apostle’s own usage in ref. Col., in my mind, decides the question. See also the following context. ἐν τῷ xp., as usually, in our con- nexion with, ‘as members of,’ Christ: not, “ by Christ.’ τὴν ὀσμήν] The similitude is not that of a sacrifice, but still the same as before: during a triumph, sweet spices were thrown about or burnt in the streets, which were θυμιαμάτων πλήρεις, Plut. mil. p. 272 (cited by Dr. Burton). As the fact of the triumph, or approach of the triumphal procession, was made known by these odours far and wide, so God diffuses by our means, who are the materials of His triumph, the sweet odour of the knowledge of Christ (who is the Triumpher, Col. ii. 15). τῆς γνώσ.] genit. of apposition: the odour, which in the interpretation of the figure, is the knowledge. αὐτοῦ,---χριστοῦ, cf. next verse. 15.] Here the pro- priety of the figure is lost, and the source of the odour identified with the Apostles themselves. For we are to God a sweet savour of Christ (gen. object., of that which was diffused by the odour, viz. the Anow- ledge of Christ. dam unguenti, seu florum aut herbarum, ‘Instar fragrantis cujus-. ἡμῶν ἐν ABCDF KLN ab EV cdefg hklm i 4 οἷς πο 17. 4 famam nominis ejus, velut bonum et sua- - vem odorem,... - spargimus apud omnes.’ Kstius) among those who are being saved, and among those who are perishing (cw. and ἀπολλ., see note, 1 Cor. 1. 18). κἂν σώζωνταί τινες, κἂν ἀπολλύωνται, Td εὐαγγέλιον, μένει ἔχον τὴν οἰκείαν ἀρετήν, K. ἡμεῖς μένομεν τοῦτο ὄντες ὕπερ ἐσμέν, Theophyl., mainly from Chrys., who pro- ceeds καὶ καθάπερ τὸ φῶς, κἂν σκοτί(ῃ τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς, φῶς ἐστι, καίτοι σκοτίζον" κ. τὸ μέλι, κἂν πικρὸν ἢ τοῖς νοσοῦσι, γλυκὺ τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν" οὕτω καὶ τὸ εὐαγ- γέλιον εὐῶδές ἐστι, κἂν ἀπολλύωνταί τινες ἀπιστοῦντες. Hom. v. p. 467. 16 a.| to the one (the latter) an odour arising from death and tending to death: to the others (the former) an odour arising from life and tending to life. The odour was, CHRIST,—who to the unbelieving is Death, a mere announce- ment of a man crucified,—and working a ee Bib de ζωῆς " εἰς Cony. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. \ w Ν A / ν id καὶ “apos ταῦτα. τίς ~ ἱκανός ; ἤἤ ς ‘ , a yap ἐσμεν ws * οἱ * πολλοὶ Y καπηλεύοντες τὸν 5 λόγον TOU 641 17 ΤῊ OU w here only. Wisd. xviii. 12. Xen. Mem. i. 2, 15. see Col. i. 12. A > 6 > > > e fal “θεοῦ, GAN δ ὡς ἐξ ὃ εἰλικρινείας, GAN δ᾽ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ, x Rom. v.15 “ κατέναντι [τοῦ] θεοῦ 4 ἐν χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν. III. 1τ᾿Αρχόμεθα πάλιν “ ἑαυτοὺς i. 14, b ch. i, 12 reff. e Ist pers., Rom. viii. 23. xv. 1. ch. v. 12. x. 12, 18 only. see Rom. iii. 5 reff. [for (wns ] ζωὴν (but corrd) δὲ, former writing being a little shorter. | 1 Cor. xi. 31. ch. & 9. iv. 2, 5. x. 12, 14. reff. y here only +. see note. A zActs xi 1] reff. 7) a = Matt. vii. 29. John d = 1 Thess. iv. 1. f (-άνειν) , f συνιστάνειν ; c Rom. iv. 17 reff. 1 Thess. ii. 8. [os ταυτα is written over an erasure in C, the 17. for πολλοι, λοιποι D F[-gr] L de fg hI nsyrr arm Chr, Thdrt: plurimi vulg (and F-lat); ceteri aut plurimi G-lat. goth Iren-int [Ambrst ]. { Ambrst ]. αλλα (1st) B. om Ist ws F latt copt om 2nd add’ F [D-lat] fuld(and demid) syr Iren-int, rec (for κατεναντι) κατενωπιον, with DFKL[ (sic, Tischdf N. T. ed 8)] rel Bas, Chr, Thdrt Damasc: evwmiov &3[so Tischdf Cod. Sin.]: txt ABCPR? m 17 Did, Chr-ms [ Euthal-ms ]. om tov (bef θεου) (to corresp with ex θεου before : but the art here is significant as giving solemnity) ABCD!X' m 17 Bas [Euthal-ms] : ins D?-3FK LPN? rel Chr Thdrt Damase. Cuap. III. 1. for συνιστανειν, συνισταν BD! 17: συνισταναι F Thdrt[-ms]: txt ACD?3KLPX rel [Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt-ed Damasc ]. death by unbelief: but to the believing, Life, an announcement of His Resurrec- tion and Life,—and working in them life eternal, by faith in Him. The double working of the Gospel is set forth in - Matt. xxi. 44; Luke 11. 34; John ix. 39. 16 Ὁ. In order to understand the connexion, we must remember that the purpose of vindicating his apostolic com- mission is in the mind of Paul, and about to be introduced by a description of the office, its requirements, and its holders. This purpose already begins to press into its service the introductory and apologetic matter, and to take every op- portunity of manifesting itself. In order then to exalt the dignity and shew the divine authorization of his office, he asks this question: And (see remarks at ver. 2) for (to accomplish) these things (this so manifold working in the believers and unbelievers,—this emission of the edw- dia χριστοῦ every where), who is suffi- cient? He does not express the answer, but it is too evident to escape any reader,— indeed it is supplied in terms by ch. iii. 5, οὐχ ὅτι ἱκανοί ἐσμεν λογίσασθαί τι ad’ ἑαυτῶν ὡς ἐξ ἑαυτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ 7H ἱκανότης ἡμῶν ex τοῦ θεοῦ. Meyer remarks that πρὸς ταῦτα is put first, in the place of emphasis, to detain the attention on its weighty import, and then τίς purposely put off till the end of the question, to introduce the interrogation unexpectedly ; as in Herod. v. 33,-- σοὶ δὲ κ. τούτοισι τοῖσι πρήγμασι τί ἔστι ;—Plato, Symp. Ῥ. 204, ὁ ἐρῶν τῶν καλῶν τί ἐρᾷ ; 17.) ot πολλοί here points definitely at those false teachers, of whom he by and by, ch. x.—xil., speaks more plainly. ἐσμεν... καπηλεύοντες) are not in the Vou. II. “Kal rec (for Ist ἢ) εἰ, with habit of adulterating (the word xa- πηλος (Sir. xxvi. 29) originally signifies any kind of huckster or vender, but espe- cialiy of wine,—and thence, from the fre- quency of adulteration of wine, καπηλεύω implied to adulterate: in Isa. 1. 22, we have of κάπηλοί σου μίσγουσι τὸν οἶνον ὕδατι: in the Etymol. (Wetst.) κάπηλος, ὁ οἰνοπώλης .. .ὃ δὲ Αἰσχύλος τὰ δόλια πάντα καλεῖ κάπηλα' “κάπηλα προφέ- ρων τεχνήματα : in Lucian, Hermotim. 59 (10.), ὅτε καὶ φιλόσοφοι ἀποδίδονται τὰ μαθήματα, ὥςπερ οἱ κάπηλοι, κερα- σάμενοί γε οἱ πολλοί, καὶ δολώσαντες, κακομετροῦντες. See many more examples in Wetst. The same is ex- pressed ch. iv. 2, by δολοῦντες τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ) the word of God, but as (‘ut qui’) from sincerity (the subjective regard of the speakers), but as from God (the objec- tive regard—a dependence: on the divine suggestion) we speak before God (with a consciousness of 1115 presence) in Christ (not ‘in the name of Christ, Grot., al., nor ‘concerning Christ, —Beza, al. : nor ‘according to Christ,’ Calv.: but as usual, in Christ: as united to Him, and mem- bers of His Body, and employed in His work). Cu. III. 1—VI. 10.] BEGINNING WITH A DISOWNING OF SELF-RECOMMENDATION, THE APOSTLE PROCEEDS TO SPEAK CON- CERNING HIS APOSTOLIC OFFICE AND HIM- SEIF AS THE HOLDER OF IT, HIS FEEL- INGS, SUFFERINGS, AND HOPES, PARTLY WITH REGARD TO HIS CONNEXION WITH THE CORINTHIANS, BUT FOR THE MOST’ PART IN GENERAL TERMS, 1—3.] He disclaims a spirit of self-recommenda- tion. 1.] apx., are we beginning ? πάλιν, alluding to a charge probably made ἢ 019 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ 8: Til. eRomavi2 μὴ ὃ χρήζομεν ws “Twes | συστατικῶν ἐπιστολῶν πρὸς ARcDF reff. J a ; . a s 3 \ a a KLPNa h -lOoriv. ὑμᾶς, ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν; 3 ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν ὑμεῖς ἐστε, dedet i here only +. k2 , 2 . δί RL 1 , ν ΘΒ Ἐ ΚΙ πὶ ppc, ἐγγεγραμμένη ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, | γινωσκομένη καὶ no 17.43 Epictet. ii. 3. - k here bis. Luke x. 20 only +. l ’ e \ / 5 fed ’ 3 mn ΄ αναγινωσκομεμὴ ὑπὸ πάντων ανσρώπων, φανερούμενοι sss Μ ‘ \ - -“ ΄ » ~ | Mace- xii, τ ὅτι ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ χριστοῦ ° διακονηθεῖσα Ud ἡμῶν, * ἐγ- 1 Acts viii. 28, , 2p ΄ ᾽ \ , q ~ ae 80 (τεθ΄). ᾿ γεγραμμένη OV μέλανι, ἀλλὰ πνεύματι 4 θεοῦ 4 ζῶντος, τη Hom. 1. - » > \ / 3 ϑιε \ 7 wet, οὐκ ἐν τ πλαξὶν " λιθίναις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τ᾿ πλαξὶν καρδίαις ' σαρ- 1 John ii. 19. ο Sat oh. viii. 19, 20. act.,2 Tim.i.18. 1 Pet. i. 12. iv. 10. ΡΞ 2John 12. 3 John 13 only f. q Acts xiv. 15 note. r here bis. Heb. ix. 4 only. Exon. xxxi. 18. s John ii. 6. Rev. ix. 20 only. Exod. 1. c. al. t Rom. vii. 14 reff. AKLP rel arm Chr, Damase: txt BCDFN afm [att copt goth Euthal-ms] Thdrt | Pel]. wstrep AD! m. rec at end adds συστατικων, with DELP rel syrr goth Thdrt-ms Damasc; συστατικὼν επιστολων F, the words commendaticiis epistolis are written over the greek in F(as also in G, the latin being there always so written): om ABCR 17 vulg(and F-lat) copt eth arm Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt(exe ms,) Ambrst. (cuv- DF: -στατικας D!.) 2. for 2nd μων, vuey & Ὁ k ο 17 [demid eth-rom]. F{-gr(and G-lat). (omnibus vulg with F-lat.) 8. ins καὶ bef eyyeypauuern B a? 67?. 74 vulg. rec καρδιας (see note), with ΕΚ rel latt Syr copt (goth) eth arm Orig,(-int;) Dial, Eus[-edd, Mac,] Chr, Cyr, Thdrt Damase Iren-int, Hil, : txt ABCD[G|L/P |X rel syr Eus-mss [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms}. for παντων, των against him of having done this in his former epistle: perhaps in its opening sec- tion, and in some passages of 1 Cor. v., ix. and xiv. 18; xv. 10 al.: see our ch. x. 18. ἢ μὴ xp-] Or do we want (the μή gives an ironical turn to the question, which is more strongly expressed in the rec. reading ei u7,—‘ unless it be thought, that’ ....) 85 some (so τινες; 1 Cor. iv. 18; xv. 12; Gal. i. 7, of the teachers who opposed him. Probably these persons had come recommended to them, by whom does not appear, whether by churches or Apostles, but most likely by the former (ἐξ ὑμῶν), and on their departure re- quested similar recommendations from the Corinthian church to others), letters of re- commendation to you (ἐπιστ. συστατικαί are fully illustrated by Suicer, Thes. in voc. Among other passages he cites the 13th canon of the council of Chalcedon: ξένους κληρικοὺς Kal ἀγνώστους ἐν ἑτέρᾳ πόλει δίχα συστατικῶν γραμμάτων τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου μηδὲ ὅλως μηδαμοῦ λειτουρ- γεῖν ; and Epist. celxxi. (al. xi.) of Basil, vol. iv. p. 417, which has this inscription : Εὐσεβίῳ ἑταίρῳ συστατικὴ ἐπὶ Κυριακῷ πρεσβυτέρῳ, “" Eusebio sodali commenda- titia Cyriaci presbyteri”) or from you? The ree. συστατικῶν at the end, as well as συστ. ἐπιστολῶν, have probably been zlosses, inserted (the ancient Mss. having no stops) to prevent ἐξ vu. being taken with ἢ émor. following. 2. Ye are our epistle (of commendation), written on our hearts (not borne in our hands to be shewn, but engraven, in the consciousness of our work among you, on our hearts. “There hardly ean be any allusion, as Olsh. thinks, to the twelve jewels engraven with the names of the tribes and borne on the breast-plate of the High Priest, Exod. xxvili. 21. The plural seems to be used, as so often in this Epistle,—see e. g. ch. vii. 3, 5,—of Paul himself only), known and read (a play on yi. and avayw., as at ch. i. 13) by all men (because all men are aware, what issue my work among you has had, and receive me the more favour- ably on account of it. But ‘all men?’ in- eludes the Corinthians themselves; his success among them was his letter of re- commendation to them as well as to others from them), 3.) manifested to be (that ye are) an epistle of Christ (i. e. written by Christ,—not, as Chrys. al., concerning Christ:—He is the Recom- mender of us, the Head of the church and Sender of us His ministers) which was ministered (aor.) by us (i.e. carried about, served in the way of ministration by us as tabellarii,—not, as Meyer and De W. and al., written by us as amanuenses: see below), having been inscribed, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God (so the tables of the law were γεγραμ- μέναι τῷ δακτύλῳ τοῦ θεοῦ, Exod. xxxi. 18), not on stone tables (as the old law, ib.), but on (your) hearts (which are) tables of flesh (Meyer calls the reading καρδίαις a mistake of the pen. But surely internal as well as external evidence is strong in its favour, the correction to καρ- δίας being so obvious to those who found the construction harsh). The apparent change in the figure in this verse requires explanation. The Corinthians are his Epis- tle of recommendation, both to themselves 2 ΡΣ 6 . κιναις. 4αἸ]]εποίθησιν δὲ “ Ἁ Ν ΄ - χριστοῦ “πρὸς τὸν θεόν. ὅ , / / Υ λογίσασθαί τι οἱκανότης ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, 6 διακόνους ἴἷ καινῆς Ὀ πνεύματος" τὸ γὰρ ἢ γράμμα ‘ ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ al. a Ist pers., ver. 1. ἃ Col. i. 12 only +. Jer. xxxviil. [xxxi.] 31). ix. 15. i (-«revy-) Matt. x. 35. Mark xii. 5. 4. for exouev, exw A. δ. λογιζεσθαι CDF 1 n. 2nd εαυτων, αυτων BF. 6. rec αποκτεινει, with B Ὁ ἃ Orig{-ed, Bas-ed, | τοιαύτην , ’ Ww οὐχ “Ὁ, δ) χα Se = e 7 Zap 35 ἑαυτῶν ws ὃ ἐξ 6 ἃ i OS καὶ fs διαθήκης, e = Eph. iii. 7. Col. Luke xii. 4. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 645 ' ἔχομεν διὰ τοῦ ἃ ch. i 15 τες i vite i ἱκανοί ἐσμεν w re 24 reff. ἃ ἑαυτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ἔτ Be 4 ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς ¥ = alae 3 28. (Jer. xi. " γράμματος " πνεῦμα B= εἴ εν, ἢ 2 c here only τ. f 1 Cor. xi. 25 ". Heb. viii. 8 (from h Rom. ii. 29. vii. 6. > > 19.) OU ἀλλὰ z Luke xii. 57, xxi. 30. John v. 19. x. 18. xvi. 13 i. 23. al. g Rom. ix. 4 reff. Rey. vi. 11. rec ap’ eauvtwy bef λογισασθαι τι, with KL rel syr Did, Chr, Thdrt Damasc: bef ἱκανοὶ ἐσμεν BCR copt arm Bas, [Euthal-ms] Antch: εσμεν m (attempts to connect ixavur and ad eavtwy): om 17. 139 Syr: latt goth [(zth) Ambrst ].—7: bef Aoy. P [Chr,]: bef txt ADF(P) om τι B. om ws C. for : amoxtevet ACDL (αποκτένει D?L) rel Orig-ms, [ Euthal- ms] Cyr-p: txt FCerpra), KPN e ΕἸ m? 17 Did, Chr-2-mss. and others; an Epistle, written by Christ, ministered by Paul; the Epistle itself being now the subject, viz. the Corinthians, them- selves the writing of Christ, inscribed, not on tables of stone, but on hearts, tables of flesh. The Epistle itself, written and worn on Paul’s heart, and there known and read byall men, consisted of the Corinthian con- verts, on whose hearts Christ had written it by His Spirit. J bear on my heart, as a testimony to all men, that which Christ has by His Spirit written in your hearts. On the tables of stone and of flesh, see Exod. as above; Prov. iii. 3; vii. 3; Jer. xxxi. 31—34, and on the contrast, also here hinted at in the background, between the heart of stone and the heart of flesh, Ezek. xi. 19; xxxvi. 26. 4—11.] His honour of his apostolie office was no personal vanity, for all the ability of the Apostles came from God, who had made them able ministers of the new covenant (4—6), a ministration infi- nitely more glorious than that of the old dispensation (7—11). 4.] The con- nexion with the foregoing is immediate: he had just spoken of his consciousness of apostolic success among them (which asser- tion would be true also of other churches . ‘which he had founded) being his world- wide recommendation. It is this confidence of which he here speaks. Such confidence however we possess through Christ to- wards God: i.e. ‘it is no vain boast, but rests on power imparted to us through Christ in regard to God, in reference to God’s work and our own account to be given to Him:’ 5. | not that (i. 6. “1 mean not, that’. . .:—not, ‘not because,’ as Winer in his former editions: see edn. 6, § 61. 5. f) we are of ourselves able to think any thing (to carry on any of the processes of reasoning or judgment, or faith belonging to our apostolic calling: there is no ellipsis, ‘any thing great,’ or ‘good, or the like) of ourselves, as if from ourselves (ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτ. and ἐξ éavr. are parallel: the latter more definitely pointing to ourselves as the origin),—but our ability (λογίσασθαι τὰ πάντα) is from (as its source) God, 6.1 Who also (=‘ qui idem ;? so Eur. Bacch. 572, ταῦτα καὶ καθύβρισ᾽ αὐτόν, ‘hee eadem illi expro- bravi.?. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p. 132) enabled us as ministers of the (or, as Stanley, “a:” but not necessarily from the omission of the art.: cf. Heb. xii. 24, καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτῃ ᾿Ιησοῦ) new Covenant (i. 6. the gospel, Eph. iii. 7 ; Col. i. 23, as distinguished from the law : see 1 Cor. xi. 25; Gal. iv. 24:—the πλάκες λίθιναι and σάρκιναι are still borne in mind, and lead on to a fuller comparison of the two covenants),—not of (governed by διακόνους, not by καινῆς d1a8.—* minis- ters, not of”? ..... ) letter (in which, viz. in formal and literal precept, the Mosaic law consisted), but of Spirit (in which, viz. in the inward guiding of the Spirit of God, the gospel consists. Bengel remarks: ‘ Paulus etiam dum hee scripsit, non litera, sed spuritus ministerium egit. Moses in proprio illo officio suo, etiam cum haud scripsit, tamen in litera versatus est’): for the letter (mere formal and literal precept, of the law) killeth ‘as in Rom. vii.,—brings the knowledge of sin, its guilt and its punishment. The reference is not, as Meyer, to natural death, which is the result of sin even where there is no law; nor as Chrys. to the law executing punish- ment), but the Spirit (of the gospel, 1. 6. God’s Holy Spirit, acting in and through Christ, Who ἐγένετο cis πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, 1 Cor. xv. 45. See also below, ver. 17) ee life (not merely life eternal, but 041 k Rom. iv. 17 reff, 1 Acts i. 17 al. m here only +t. K ζωοποιεῖ. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT> 7 εἰ δὲ ἡ | διακονία τοῦ B. ΤῊ]: θανάτου ἐν » γράμματι m ἐντετυπωμένη λίθοις ἐγενήθη τ ἐν ὁ» δύξῃ, ὥςτε μὴ δύ- Luke iv. 32 ᾽ / \ eo N 5 \ > \ , "i ps. ψάσθαι “ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραὴλ εἰς τὸ πρόςωτπον xxvill. 4. ’ \ Ἢ " = , > ὃν ee o1Cor.xv.48 Μωυσέως διὰ τὴν Ῥ δόξαν τοῦ προςώπου αὐτοῦ THY" KaT- 258 Ἔ f A ees A ς ͵ a , rae" αργουμένην, ὃ πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἡ ᾿ διακονία τοῦ Ῥπνεύ- 4 epp., here ” no 2,, op 5 ' 9 2? \ e 1§ , Ag and νεῖ. 13 ματος ἔσται "Ὁ EV ὀξῃ; 8 εἰ γὰρ ἡ ' διακονία τῆς * κατα- only. Acts i. 10 reff. 4 t eye u ᾿ Εν ton κρίσεως δόξα, ᾿ πολλῷ ' μᾶλλον ἃ περισσεύει ἡ Y διακο- iv. 29,30.) ΄ A 7 / , \ \ 5) , riCor 28 | Wa τῆς " δικαιοσύνης Ῥ δόξη. 10 καὶ γὰρ οὐ ¥ δεδόξασται off. part. Tree ἴδ. ii. 6. sch. vii. 3only +. Numb. xiii. 33 alius in Hexapl. {Montf. (not Fd.)]) t Rom. v. 9, 10 reff. u — Rom. ili. 7 reff. constr., ch. vili. 7 (πίστει, K.T.A.). Sir. xi. 12. v see ch. xi. 15. w = Rom. xi. 13. Judg. ix. 9. 7. for @avarov, θεου SN? (txt X-corr!). rec (for γραμματι) γραμμασιν (see note), with ACD2°KLPR rel latt(ditteris aut littera G-lat) syr copt goth Orig,{-c, |(-int,) Mac Syr farm}. for evret., τετυπωμενὴ F. Chr, Thdrt Damase [Euthal-ms Ambrst]: ἐενγεγραμμενὴ 17: txt B D'{-gr] F{-gr] rec ins ev bef λιθοις, with D?-3K LN! rel flatt arm] Orig,(-int,) Mac, Chr Damasc [Aug,]: om ABC D![-gr] F{-grj PX! 17 G-lat Orig,[-c, Euthal-ms] Did, Epiph Thdrt. for του, αὐτου (but av erased) X}. 8. for ovx:, ovd: &'(but x written above by N! or -corr!). 9. for 150 7, τη AC D![and lat] F[-gr] δὲ a 17 am syrr eth Orig,(-int,) Cyr, Ambrst : txt B D®[-gr] KLP rel vulg[-ed |(and F-lat) G-lat copt goth Mac, Chr, Thdrt [Antch, ] Damasce Aug Pel. Orig, ]. abundavit D-lat. aft δοξα ins ἐστιν D!F [latt (Syr copt arm) ]} Orig-int,{/om περισσευσει D-gr Καὶ ὁ syrr Mac, Orig-int,, abundabit G-lat Ambrst: rec ins ev bef δοξη (prob from ev δ. above, ver 8, and below, ver 11), with DEK LPN’ rel latt goth Orig,(-int,) Mac [Cyr, Antch, ] Ambrst: om ABC 17 tol Syr [ Euthal-ms ].—dvéa δὰ], 10. rec ovde (mistake, from δὲ being the first syllable of the next word), with h latt Thdot-ancyr,(ovde yap) Thl-ed Orig-int,: txt ABC D[-gr] F{-gr] ΚἼΡΝ rel copt goth the whole new life of the man of God, see Rom. vi. 4,11; viii. 2,10). On the his- tory of this meaning of γράμμα, see Stanley’s note. 7—11.] And this ministration is infinitely more glorious than was that of Moses under the old Covenayt. He argues from the less to the greater: from the transitory glory of the killing letter, to the abiding glory of the life-giving Spirit. 7. | But (pass- ing to another consideration,—the compa- rison of the two διακονίαι) if the minis- tration of death in the letter (of that death which the law, the code of literal and formal precept, brought in. This not having been seen, it was imagined that γράμματι belonged to ἐντετυπωμένη, and hence it was altered, as more according to fact, into γράμμασιν, the received reading. | No art. is required before γράμματι, as Meyer objects,—on account of the pre- position ev) engraven on stones (it seems strange that ἐντετ. λίθ. should be the pre- dicate of διακονία ; but the ministration is the whole putting forth of the dispensa- tion, the purport of which was summed up in the decalogue, written on stones. The decalogue thus written was, as in ver. 3, διακονηθεῖσα ὑπὸ Μωυσέως) was (con- stituted) in glory (as its state or accom- panying condition :—the abstract as yet, to be compared with the glory of the tther: the concrete, the brightness on the face of Moses, is not yet before us), so that the sons of Israel could not fix their eyes on (they were afraid to come nigh him, Exod. xxxiv. 30 —so that μὴ δύνασθαι is not said of physical inability, but of inability from fear) the face of Moses, on account of the glory of his face, which was transitory (‘transitoria et modici temporis,’ Estius;—supernaturally con- ferred for a season, and passing away when the occasion was over), how shall not rather the ministration of the Spirit (= ἡ διακονία τῆς ζωῆς ἐν πνεύματι, as formally opposed to the other :—but not so expressed, because the Spirit is the principle of life, whereas the Law only led to death) be (future, because the-glory will not be accomplished till the manifesta- tion of the kingdom: according to Billroth, ‘esse invenietur si rem recte perpenderi- mus :’ or as Bengel, ‘ loquitur ex prospectu veteris Testamenti in novum :’ but I much prefer the above, as giving the contrast, by and by expressed, between τὸ καταργού- μενον and τὸ μένον) in glory? 9.] For (an additional reason ‘a minori ad majus ’) if the ministration of condemna- tion was (or, is) glory (the change of ἡ διακονία to the dat. has been made ap- parently because a difficulty was found in the ministration itself being glory), much more does the ministration of righteous- ness abound in glory. The ministration ABCDF KLPxa bedef ghklim no 17.47 7—13. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS, B. 645 Ν Χ ὃ ὃ , y ’ / A y , / = 7 e : TO (5 οξασμένον εν τοῦυτῷ T@ Mepet, ELVEKEV τῆς UTTEP= x em χχχὶν. > { 3 βαλλούσης δόξης. 11 εἰ γὰρ τὸ ᾿ καταργούμενον * διὰ δό- ¥ cb. ix: 3. Col. ii. 16 Ἂ eo \ , ᾽ , ς 7 1 Pet. iv. 16 Ens, πολλῷ 'uadrov τὸ ὃ μένον, "ev °P δόξῃ. 13 ἔχοντες oes iam chy ix, 14. 5 , ᾽ i aA Ὁ af fy a ‘ 13 Σ Ephiaall οὖν τοιαύτην ἐλπίδα cary παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα, ; Kat . Eph we ΟῚ , an 7, " Η E , ov “καθάπερ Μωυσῆς ἐτίθει ᾿ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ TO πρόςωπον ΝΣ Ty. phe ides \ \ iad Soe. ’ \ ei | \ > 13 ual. (ὑπερν αὐτου ρος TO ft?) QATEVIGAL τοὺς UVLOVUS σραὴλ, ELS βαλλόντως, ch. xi. 23. -βολή, ch. i. 8.) a=chii 4 v.7. b = Heb. xii. 27, 1 Pet. i. 23, 25 (from Isa. xl. 8) al. fr. c (Gospp. παῤῥησίᾳ, Mark viii. 32. John vii. 13 α16, ἐν 7., John vii. 4. xvi. 29 only.) Acts ii. 29 al4. Paul, ch. vii.4 al6. Heb. iii. 6 al3. 1 John ii. 28 al3. only. Prov. i. 2) al. d ch. i. 17. Rom. iv. 6 reff. f here 4 times only. Exop. xxxiv. 33—35. g constr., == 1 Thess. ii. 9. (see note.) h ver. 7. eth arm Orig,[-c,] Mac, Bas Chr-2-mss [Euthal-ms] Jer, Aug). rec (for ev.) evexev, with CF1KL rel Orig, [Mac Bas Chr Euthal-ms Thdot-anc Thdrt]: txt ABD F2GPR g m 47 Damase, ἤνεκεν 17. 13. rec εαὐτου, with DKN rel Chr, Thdrt: [om goth:] txt ABCFLP Frag-coisl acdm 17. [47 Euthal-ms] Chr-2-mss Damase. of condemnation, because (Rom. vii. 9 ff.) the Law detects and condemns sin :—the ministration otf righteousness, because (Rom. i. 17) therein the righteousness of God is revealed and imparted by faith. 10.] For (substantiation of the foregoing πολλῷ μᾶλλον) even that which has been glorified (viz. the dian. τ. κατα- κρίσ., which was ev δόξῃ by the brightness on the face of Moses) has not been glori- fied (has lost all its glory) in this respect (i.e. when compared with the gospel,— κατὰ τὸν τῆς συγκρίσεως λόγον, Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 481. De W. takes ἐν rt. τῷ μέρ. with δεδοξασμένον, ‘that which was in this particular glorified,’ viz. in the brightness on the face of Moses :—but that would more naturally be τὸ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει δεδοξασμένον :—as it now stands 1 cannot divide otherwise than οὐ δεδόξασ- Tat | τὸ δεδοξασμένον | ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει. Meyer takes τὸ δεδοξ. as abstract, and ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει as pointing to the conerete : ‘that which has been glorified (general and abstract) has in this particular department (concrete, viz. the διακ. τ. κατακρίσ. which was δεδοξασμ.) no glory: q.d. the glorified is unglorified in this case.? This may certainly be, and is ingenious: but the other is simpler) on account of (i. 6. when we take into consideration) the surpassing glory (viz. of the other διακονία :—pre- sent, because spoken of qualitatively). 11.] For (a fresh ground cf superiority in glory of the Christian over the Mosaic ministry) if that which is transitory (not here, as above, the brilliancy of the visage of Moses, for that was the δόξα, but the ministry itself, the whole purpose which that ministry served, which was paren- thetical and to come to an end) was with glory (διά, see reff., of the condition or circumstances in whicha thing takes place), much more is that which abideth (tiie everlasting gospel) in glory. Estius says, “per gloriam (διὰ δ.) innuere videtur aliquid momentaneum ac transitorium : ΤΣ gloria, aliquid manens et stabile.”” Simi- larly, Olshausen: but it is quite in the style of our Apostle to use various prepositions to express nearly the same relation,—see Rom. iii. 22, 30; v. 10. 12, 18.] From a consciousness of this superior glory of his ministration, the Apostle uses great plainness of speech, and does not, as Moses, use a vail. 12. ἐλπίδα viz. that expressed Ὀγ ἔσται ἐν δόξῃ, ver. 8: the hope of the ultimate manifestation of exceeding glory as belong- ing to his ministration. παῤῥησίᾳ] πρὸς τίνα, εἶπέ μοι πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἢ πρὸ τοὺς μαθητάς; πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοὺς μαθητευο- μένους, φησί: τουτέστι, μετ᾽ ἐλευθερίας πανταχοῦ φθεγγόμεθα, οὐδὲν ὑποστελλόμε- νοι, οὐδὲν ἀποκρυπτόμενοι, οὐδὲν ὑφορώμε- νοι, ἀλλὰ σαφῶς λέγοντες" καὶ οὐ δεδοίκα- μεν μὴ πλήξωμεν ὑμῶν τὰς ὄψεις, καθάπερ Μωυσῆς τὰς Ἰουδαίων, Chrys. p. 482. 18.1 καὶ ov, and (do) not (place a vail on our fuace,—so Mark xv. 8, 6 ὄχλος ἤρξατο αἰτεῖσθαι (ποιεῖν) καθὼς ἀεὶ ἐποίει αὐτοῖς. See Winer, edn. 6, § 64, i. 1 b.) as Moses placed a vail on his face, in order that (see below) the sons of Israel might not look on the termination of the transitory (viz. his διακονία, see ver. 11, but spoken of as δεδοξασμένη : ‘the glory of his ministra- tion’). A mistake has been made with re- gard to the history in Exod. xxxiv. 33—35, which has considerably obscured the un- derstanding of this verse. It is commonly assumed, that Moses spoke to the Israel- ites, having the vail on his face ; and this is implied in our version—‘ till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.” But the LXX (and Heb.) gave a different account: καὶ ἐπειδὴ κατέπαυσεν λαλῶν πρὸς αὐτούς, ἐπέθηκεν ἐπὶ τὸ mpds- wrov αὐτοῦ κάλυμμα. He spoke to them without the vail, with his face shining and glorified: when he had. done speaking, he 646 ITPOS KOPINOIOT®S B. 11]. isceRom.x.4. τὸ ἱ τέλος τοῦ ἢ" καταργουμένουις 18 ἀλλ᾽ * ἐπωρώθη τὰ ABCDE k Rom. xi. 7 Ἔ I aes " Α ra - ζ wah ey coe ἱνοήματα αὐτῶν. “aypt yap τῆς "σήμερον * ἡμέρας bedef ghklim Do 17.47 om to D!F. for τελος, tposwrov A vulg(and F-lat) Ambrst. (finem is written over TeAos in the greek column of F. The mistakein A and vulg may have arisen from the eye of some scribe having passed to the mposwrov in the line above: τελος stands just below mposwrov un Mattha@i’s edn of K.) . 14. adda B. εἐπωρωθησαν Καὶ (g! 3). rec om ἡμέρας (as unnecessary, see ver 15), with KL rel [Syr eth] Archel, Did, Bas, Chr, Thdrt Damase: ins ABCDFPX m = Rom. viii. 22 reff. n Matt. xxviii. 15. Acts xx. 26. Rom. xi.Sonly. Josh. ν. 9. Jer. i. 18, of concealment and transitoriness: the placed the vail on his face: and that, not because they were afraid to look on him, but as here, that they might not look on the end, or the fading, of that transitory glory ; that they might only see it as long as it was the credential of his ministry, and then it might be withdrawn from their eyes. ‘Thus the declaration of God’s will to them was not ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ, but was interrupted and broken by intervals of concealment, which ours is not. The op- position is twofold: (1) between the vailed and the wnvailed ministry, quoad the mere fact of concealment in the one case, and: openness in the other: (2) between the ministry which, was suspended by the vailing, that its τέλος might not be seen, and that which proceeds ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, having no termination. On the common interpretation, Commentators have found an almost insuperable difficulty in πρὸς τὸ μὴ at. The usual escape from it bas been to render it, ‘so that the Israelities could not,’ as in ver. 7. De Wette somewhat modifies this, and sees in it the divine purpose: ‘in order that,’ but not in the intention of Moses, but of God’s Providence. But both these render- ings are ungrammatical. πρὸς τό with an infinitive never signifies the mere result, nor, as Meyer rightly remarks against De Wette, the objective purpose, but always the subjective purpose present to the mind of the actor: he refers to Matt. v.28; vi. 1; xiii. 30; xxiii. 8; Mark xiii.22; Eph. vi. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8; James ili. 3 (rec.) ; and Matt. xxvi. 12 (see my note there). I may remark also, that the narrative in Exodus, the LXX version of which the Apostle here closely follows (see below on ver. 16), implies that the bright- ness of Moses’s face had place not on that one occasion only, but throughout his whole ministry between the Lord and the people. When he ceased speaking to them, he put on the vail; but whensoever he went in before the Lord to speak to Him, the vail was removed till he came out, and had spoken to the Israelites all that the Lord had commanded him, during which speaking they saw that his face shone,— aud after which speaking he again put on the vail. So that the vail was the symbol part revealed they might see: beyond that, they could ποῦ : the ministry was a broken, interrupted one; its end was wrapped in obscurity. In the τέλος τοῦ Karapy. we must not think, as some Commentators have done, of Christ (Rom. x. 4), any fur- ther than it may be hinted in the back- ground that when the law came to an end, He appeared. 14—18.] The contrast is now made be- tween the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, on whose heart this vail still is in the reading of the O. T., and Us ALL (Christians), who with uncovered face behold the glory of the Lord. This ‘section is parenthetical. Before and after it, the ménistry is the subject : in it, they to whom the ministry is directed. But it serves to shew the whole spirit and condition of the two classes, and thus further to substantiate the character of openness and freedom asserted of the Christian ministry. 14. But (also) their understandings were hardened (on this, the necessary sense of ἐπωρώθη, sce note, Eph. iv. 18). These words evidently refer, as well as what fol- lows, not to the τέλος, which they did not see, but to that which’ they did see: to that which answers to the present ἀνά- γνωσις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, viz. the word of God imparted by the ministration of Moses. And by these words the transition is made from the form of similitude just ᾿ used, to that new one which is about to be used ; q. ἃ. ‘not only was there a vail on Moses’s face, to prevent more being known, but also their understandings were dark- ened: there was, besides, a vail on their hearts” So that ἀλλά = but also, or moreover. To refer this ἀλλ᾽ érwp. to παῤῥησίᾳ χρώμεθα, to the present hard- heartedness of the Jews under the freedom of speech of the Gospel, as Olsh., De W., al., is, in my view, to miss the whole sense of the passage. No reference whatever is made to the state of the Jews under the preaching of the gospel, but only as the objects of the O. ‘Il. ministration,—zhen, under the oral teaching of Moses,—zow, in the reading of the O. T. In order to understand what follows, the change of sinilitude must be carefully borne in mind. © 14—16. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@OIOTS B. 647 \ » Lees / \ A “ -»" τὸ αὐτὸ ' κάλυμμα "5 ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς “' παλαιᾶς o=sohnix. | Ι. Ch. Vil. 4, ΄ , 4 » ΄ © A . «διαθήκης μένει, μὴ " ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν χριστῷ He” “- - , 77 ΄ 3 Acts xiii. 15. txatapyetras’ 15 ἀλλ᾽ “ws ἃ σήμερον, " ἡνίκα ἂν ~ ava- ἢ 1 Tim. iv. 13 ͵ Qn f ΄ x , \ A 7 > ᾿Ξ Neh. γινώσκηται Μωυσῆς, feadkuupa * ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν only. Ne 8. : 16 Vv ¢ / Lm ἣν τ , Ν ΄ Ζ : pa ἐὰν ξ ἡνίκα δ᾽ ἂν ¥ ἐπιστρέψῃ Y πρὸς κύριον, 7 περι- Rom. vi. δ. 1 Cor. ν. 7,8 t vv. 7 κεῖται. al. Lev. xxv. 22. s here bis only. Job xii. 22 and Isa. iii. 17 BN. (ἀποκ. A.) &e. ἃ here only. Sir. xlvii. 7. see Matt. xxvii. 8. Rom. xi. 8. vy here bis only. Exod. xxxiv. 34. Deut. vii. 12. w constr., Acts viii. 28. (xiii. 27.) xv. 21. x sO Acts x. li, xills Rev.ill.20: Ὑ ΤΑ vil, 1. xx.) y =1 Thess. i.9. (Acts ix. 40.) Amos iv. 6. z Acts xxvii. 20 reff. m 17 latt copt [syr goth arm] Clem, Cyr[-p Euthal-ms] Orig-int, [Cypr,] Ambrst. for em, ev DF Chry. 15. rec om av (from av beginning avaywwor.?), with DEKL[P] rel (Orig[-c, ]) Eus, Cyr-jer, Cas, Chr, Cyr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damase: ins ABCR Orig, Cyr, Thdrt,, eav 17, rec αναγινωσκεται, with FKL rel vulg Eus, Cyr-jer, Cees, Chr, Cyr,{ -ms,- ΡΊ Thdrt, Damase Orig-int,: txt A B(see table) CDP ὁ m 17 Orig.[-c,; Chr-ms Cyr[-p.-ms, Euthal-ms}| Thdrt,. from καλυμμα to το next ver is repeated by B'. κειται bef em τὴν καρδ. av. D'-3F latt [eopt] goth eth. 16. for ἡνίκα, οταν ΕἾ ora] Chr,. τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα] ‘the vail once on Moses’s face,’ is now regarded as laid on their hearts. It denoted the ceasing, the covering up, of his oral teaching; for it was put on when he had done speaking to the people. Now, his oral teaching has altogether ceased, and the διακονία is car- ried on by abook. But as when we listen, the speaker is the agent, and the hearers are passive,—so on the other hand, when we read, we are the agents and the book is passive. The book is the same to all: the’ difference between those who understand and those who do not understand is now a subjective difference—the vail is no longer on the face of the speaker, but on the heart of the reader. So that of necessity the form of the similitude is changed. For (answering to an understood clause, ‘and remain hardened’) to the present day the same vail (which was once on the face of Moses) remains at the reading of the Old Testament (7 mad. διαθ. here, as we now popularly usethe words, the book com- prising the ancient Covenant), the dis- covery not being made (by the removal of the vail) that it (the O. T.) is done away in Christ (that the Old Covenant has passed away, being superseded by Christ). This I believe to be the only admissible sense of the words, consistently with the symbolism of the passage. The render- ings, ‘remains not taken away—for it (i.e. the vail) ἐδ done away in Christ,’ and (as E.V.) ‘remaineth . . untaken away .. which vail (6 τι) is done away in Christ, —are inadmissible: (1) because they make καταργεῖται, which throughout the passage belongs to the glory of the ministry, to apply to the vail: and (2) be- cause they give no satisfactory sense. It is not because the vail can only be done away in Christ, that it now remains un- de εαν AN! 17: om av C k Mac Bas. taken away on their hearts, but because their hearts are hardened. Besides, the Apostle would not have expressed it thus, but ἐν χριστῷ γὰρ καταργ. The word ἀνακαλυπτόμενον has been probably chosen, as is often the practice of the Apostle, on account of its relation to κάλυμμα, —it not being unvailed to them that 15.] But (reassertion of μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, with a view to the next clause) to this day, whenever Moses is read, a vail lies upon their heart (under- standing. κεῖται ἐπί w. acc.,—pregn., in- volving the being laid on, and remaining there). 16.] Here, the tertium com- parationis is, the having on a vail, and taking it off on going into the presence of the Lord. This Moses did; and the choice of the same words as those of the LXX, shews the closeness of the comparison ; ἡνίκα δ᾽ ἂν eiseropevero Μωυσῆς ἔναντι κυρίου λαλεῖν αὐτῷ, περιῃρεῖτο τὸ κά- λυμμα. This shall likewise be done in the case of the Israelites: when it (i.e. 7 καρ- δία αὐτῶν,--ποῦ Israel, as Chrys.; Theod., Theophyl., Erasm., al.,—nor Moses, as Calv., Estius,—nor τίς, as Orig., al.) shall turn to the Lord (here again ἐπιστρέψῃ πρός is carefully chosen, being the very ex- pression of the LXX, when the Israelites, having been afraid of the glory of the face of Moses, returned to him after being summoned by him :---ἐφοβήθησαν ἐγγίσαι αὐτῷ᾽ Kal ἐκάλεσεν αὐτοὺς Μωυσῆς, καὶ ἐπεστράφησαν πρὸς αὐτὸν ....-- “π--αυὰ κύριον appears to be used for the same reason) the vail is taken away (not, shall be, because ἣ καρδία is the subject, and thus the taking away becomes an indivi- dual matter, happening whenever and wherever conversion takes place). Let me restate this,—as it is all-important towards the understanding of vv. 17, 18. ‘When 648 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B: ΠῚ. ΜΠ ΉῊῚῚ: nw ’ a ‘ nm - ᾽ a Acts viii, 9. αιρεῖται TO! κάλυμμα. 11 Ὃ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν" ABCDF ff. = ’ = , ΚΙΡΝ a b Rom. viil,21. οὗ δὲ τὸ * πνεῦμα * κυρίου, ὃ ἐλευθερία. 18 ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες bedef Cor. x. 29. g m Gal. v. 1, 13. Ley. xix. 20. ΄ / / δ ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προςώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου “ KaT- nol7.47 c here only t. ΄ \ > \ ad > , e / θ > \ Ἢ (ee mote.) οπτριζόμενοι, τὴν αὐτὴν “ εἰκόνα “ μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ om, Vill. « Η . ᾿ 2 3 \ ; , _ rel vere δόξης εἰς δόξαν, ᾿ καθάπερ 5 ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος. only, see ; Moulton’s Winer, p. 538, note 1. iv. 6 reff. 17. for οὗ, που F. for κυριου, To avytoy Li. rec ins exee bef ελευθερια (see notes), with D?3FKLP83 rel latt syr goth eth arm Ath,[-int,] Epiph, Bas, Chr, Cyr, Thdrt Damase Orig-int; Hil, [Novat, Ambrst]: om ABC D}|-gr] 8! 17 fri Syr Matt. xvii. 2!| Mk. Rom. xii. 2 only+. Ps. xxxiii.1 Symm. f Rom, = Acts ii. 22. Jamesi. 13 al. ξ copt Nys, [Cyr-p,(in Cyr, both readings are found) Euthal-ms ]. 8. αποπτριζομενοι F: ενοπτριζομεθα Mac). Eus, Mac). καθωςπερ Β. their heart goes in to speak with God, —ceases to contemplate the dead letter, and begins to commune with the Spirit of the old covenant (the Spirit of God), then the vail is removed, as it was from the face of Moses.’ 17.] Now (δέ exponentis. tis δὲ οὗτος πρὸς ὃν δεῖ ἀποβλέψαι ; Theodoret) the Lord is the Spirit: i.e. the κύριος of ver. 16, is, the Spirit, whose word the O.T. is: the mvedua,—as opposed to the ypduua,— which ζωοποιεῖ, ver. 6. But it is not merely, as Wetst., ‘Dominus significat Spiritum,’ nor is πνεῦμα merely, as Olsh., the spiritual sense of the law: but, ‘the Lord, as here spoken of, ‘ Christ,’ ‘ts the Spirit,’ is identical with the Holy Spirit : not personally nor essentially, but, as is shewn by τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου following, in this department of His divine working :— Christ, here, is the Spirit of Christ. The principal mistaken interpretation (among many, see Pool’s Synops., Meyer, De Wette) is that of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., (Ecum., Estius, Schulz,— making τὸ πνεῦ- pa the subject, and 6 kup. the predicate, which though perhaps (but would δέ then have had its present position ?) allowable, is against the context, 6 δὲ κύρ. being plainly resumed from 6 κύρ. in ver. 16. The words are then used by them as a proof of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. But (δέ appealing to a known or evi- dent axiom, as in a mathematical demon- stration) where the Spirit of the Lord (see above) is, is liberty (ἐκεῖ has pro- bably been inserted, as being usual after ov: but, as Meyer remarks, not in St. Paul’s style, see Rom. iv. 15; v. 20). They are fettered in spirit as long as they are slaves to the letter, = as long as they have the vail on their hearts; but when they turn to the Lord the Spirit, which is not πνεῦμα δουλείας but mv. υἱοθεσίας, Rom. viii. 15, —and by virtue of whom οὐκ ἔτι εἶ δοῦλος, ἀλλὰ vids, Gal. iv. 7,—then they are at _ liberty. There can hardly be any allusion to a vail over the head implying suljec- μεταμορφουμενοι A 23 Orig,(-int,) tion, as 1 Cor. xi. 10, (Erasm., Beza, Grot., Bengel, Fritz.,) for here the covering of the head with a vail is not thought of, but merely intercepting the sight. 18,] But (the sight of the Jews is thus intercepted ; in contrast to whom) WE all (‘all Christians? not, as Erasm., Estius, Bengel, al. m., ‘we Apostles and teach- ers: the contrast is to the viol Ἰσραήλ above) with unvailed face (the vail having been removed at our conversion: the stress is on these words) beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord (i.e. Christ: from vv. 16,17. κατοπτρίζω is to shew in a mirror, to make a reflexion in a mirror ; so Plutarch, de Placitis Philosophorum, iii. 5: Anaxagoras explained a rainbow to be the reflexion of the sun’s brightness from a thick cloud, that always stands opposite Tod κατοπτρίζοντος αὐτὸ ἀστέρος. In the middle, it is ‘to behold oneself in a mirror: so Diog. Laert., Plato, p. 115, τοῖς μεθύουσι συνεβούλευε κατοπτρίζεσθαι; —but also, to see in a mirror, so Philo, Legis Allegor. iii. 33, vol.i. p. 107, uh yap ἐμφανισθείης μοι δι’ οὐρανοῦ ἢ γῆς ἢ ὕδατος ἢ ἀέρος ἤ τινος ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐν γενέσει, μηδ κατοπτρισαίμην ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν, ἢ ἐν σοὶ τῷ θεῷ. And such is evidently the meaning here: the gospel is this mir- ror, ὑπο εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης TOU χριστοῦ, ch. iv. 4, and we, looking on it with un- vailed face, are the contrast to the Jews, with vailed hearts reading theirlaw. The meaning ‘reflecting the glory,’ ἄς. as Chrys., Luth, Calov., Bengel, Billroth, Olsh., is one which neither the word nor the context (see above) will bear (see, however, Stanley’s note), are transfigured into the same image (which we see in the mirror: the image of the glory of Christ, see Gal. iv. 19, which is more to the point than Rom. viii. 21, cited by Meyer, and 1 John iii. 3. But the change here spoken of isa spiritual one, not the bodily chanye at the Resurrection: it is going on here in the process of sanctification. No prep πορᾶ be understood before τὴν αὐτὴῦ Byech 2. IV. 1 διὰ τοῦτο ἔχοντες τὴν ! iprenOnuev, οὐκ * ἐγκακοῦμεν, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ Β. 649 διακονίαν ταύτην, καθὼς b= Acts xx. 2 ἀλλὰ ᾿ἀπειπάμεθα τὰ "δὲ τεβ᾽ τ; m \ πο ΤῊΣ “ἷ \ o an 02 p k Luke xviii. 1. Κρύυπτα ΤῊ ς αὐυσχύυνῆήης, μῆ περύπατουντες Εν πανουρ- ver. 16. Gal. vi. 9. Eph. iii. 13. 2 Thess. iii. 13 only. L.P.t Symm., Gen. xxvii. 46. Num. xxi. 5. Isa. vii. 16. 1 here only. 3 Kings xi. 2. Job x. 3 al. m and constr., Rom. ii. 16 reff. n Luke xiv. 9. Phil. iti. 19. Hebd. xii.2. Jude 13. Rev. iii. 18 only. Ps. Ixxxviii. 45. o Rom. vi. 4. ch. x.3. Eph.v.2al. Prov. vili, 20. Cnap. IV. 1. for ταυτην, avtny F[-g om vulg-clem]. p 1 Cor. iii. 19 reff. rec εκκακουμεν, with CD3KLP rel [Chr, Thdrt Damasc] : fat ‘ABD! ΕΝ m 17 [Euthal-ms]. 9. (αλλα, so A(perhavs) BCDN cde fg hk1n 47 [Damasc].) epya K. eixdva—the passive verb indirectly governs the ace., as in ἀποτέμνομαι τὴν κεφαλήν and similar cases) from glory to glory (this is explained, either (1) ‘from one de- gree of glory to another ;? so most Com- mentators and De Wette, or (2) ‘from (by) the glory which we see, into glory, as Chrys. p. 486, ἀπὸ δόξης, τῆς τοῦ πνεύ- patos, εἰς δόξαν, τὴν ἡμετέραν, τὴν ἐγγι- yvouevnv,—TVheodoret, (cum., Theophyl., Bengel, Fritz., Meyer, al. T prefer the former, as the other would introduce a tautology, the sentiment being expressed in the words following) as by the Lord the Spirit. κυρίου πνεύματος = τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ πνεύματος, ὕπο first art. being omitted after the preposition, the second to con- form the predicate to its subject, as in ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρός, Gal. 1. 3,— and answers to 6 δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν above. This seems the obvious and most satis- factory way of taking the words, and, froin ver. 17, to be necessitated by the context ; and so Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Calov., Wolf, Estius, al. The rendering upheld by Fritz., Billroth. Meyer, De Wette, ‘the Lord of the Spirit,’ i.e. ‘Christ, whose Spirit He is,’ seems to me to convey very little meaning, besides being an expression altogether unprecedented. The trans- formation is effected by the Spirit (τοῦτο μεταμορφοῖ, Chrys.), the Author and Up- holder of spiritual life, who ‘ takes of the things of Christ, and shews them to us,’ John xvi. 14, see also Rom. viii. 10, 11,— who sanctifies us till we are holy as Christ is holy ; the process of renewal after Christ’s image is such a transformation as may be expected by the agency of (καθάπερ ἀπό, so Chrys., καὶ τοιαύτην οἵαν εἰκὸς ἀπὸ ... .) the Lord the Spirit,—Christ Himself being the image, see ch. iv. 4. The two other ren- derings are out of the question, as being inconsistent with the order of the words: viz.: (1) that of E. V. and of Vulg., Theo- phyl., Grot., Bengel, ‘the Spirit of the Lord, and (2) that of Chrys., Theodoret, Calov., Estius, ‘the Spirit who is the Lord.’ Meyer objects to the interpre- tation given above as inconsistent with the self- evident connexion of the genitives. How would le render ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρός ὃ for κρυπτα, IV. 1—6.] Taking up again the subject of his freedom of speech (ch. iii. 12), he declares his renunciation of all deceit, and manifestation of the truth to every man (ver. 2), even though to some the Gospel be hidden (vv. 3,4). And this because he preaches, without any selfish admizture, only the pure light of. the Gospel of Christ (vv. 5, 6). 1.] διὰ τοῦτο refers to the previous description of the freeness and unvailedness of the ministry of the Gospel, and of the state of Christians in general (ch. iii. 18). ἔχοντες τ. ὃ. ταύτ. further expands and explains διὰ τοῦτο. καθὼς ἠλεήθ.] even as we received mercy (from God, at the time of our being appointed ; cf. ἠλεήθην, 1 Tim. i. 16): be- longs to ἔχ. τ. 6. ταύτ., not to what follows, and is a qualification, in humility, of €xovTes—‘ possessing it, not as our own, but in as far as we were shewn mercy.’ οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν) We do not behave our- selves in a cowardly manner, do not shrink from plainness of speech and action. ἐγκακέω is the opposite of παῤῥησιάζω. οὐκ ἐκκακοῦμεν would be, ‘we do not give up through faintness or cowardice. It is hardly possible to decide satisfactorily be- tween the two readings. ἐγκ. seems to be universal, except in the N. T. (rec. text) and the Fathers, which have éxx. Did the Fathers borrow this form from the N. T., or was it the usual form of later Greek, and as such introduced into the text by the copyists? In such doubt, I have followed manuscript authority. But (cowardice alone prompting concealment insuch a case, where it does not belong to the character of the ministry itself) we have renounced (so Herod. iv. 125, τῶν ἀπειπαμένων τὴν σφετέρην συμμαχίην : ABlian, N. Η. vi. 1, τὴν ἀκόλαστον κοίτην ἀπείπατο παντελῶς πᾶσαν : and other examples in Wetst.) the hidden things of shame (the having any views, ends, or practices which such as have them hide through shame: not, as De Wette, the hidden things of infamy or dishonesty. αἰσχύνη is subjective, = ΕΒ, Meyer, φόβος ἐπὶ mpusdoxia ἀδυξίας, Plato Defin. p. 416. It is plain from the context that it refers, not to crimes and unholy practices, but to crooked arts, of which 650 q here only. Ῥδ. χῖν. ὃ. χχχν. 2. r 1 Cor. xii. 7 Ὁ Ist pers.,ch. : ili. 1 reff. uch. i. 12 reff. v ver. 16. ch. v. 16. vii. 8 al. w 1 Thess. i. δ. 2 Thess. ii. 14. see Rom. 1). 16. xvi. 25. 2 Tim. ii. 8. αἰῶνος ἢ τούτου © ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ i δοξ “ la) Ὁ“ 3 οζῆς TOV χριστου, ος ἐστιν 1 John ii. 11 only. TV; / \ »-»" \ , »- nw 5" A -" γίᾳ, μηδὲ « δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τῇ , a , e \ \ ᾿ φανερώσει τῆς ἀληθείας " συνιστάντες ' ἑαυτοὺς πρὸς ὃ ν εὐ δὲ v Σ “ NW ἐλ, W mua Dae ry καὶ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ Κ᾽ εὐωγγέλιον “ ἡμῶν, * ἐν τοῖς ’ o ς \ > a Υ ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶν κεκαλυμμένον, 3. 5 ἐν οἷς 0 θεὸς τοῦ / ~ εν / 4 γνρήματα τῶν " ἀπίστων, f Pd \ \ > , \ ἢ Ν a ji » / na εἰς TO μὴ Savyacat τὸν ἢ φωτισμὸν Tov ' εὐαγγελίου τῆς ΄ Ψ x lal lal Κεὐκὼν tov θεοῦ. a here only. 5 » \ ov yap see John xii. 31. xiv. 30. Eph. ii. 2. vi. 12. Isa. xlii. 19 only. d ch. ii. 11 reff. g here only. Levit. xiii. 24, ἄς. xiv. 56 only. (-γή, h here bis only. notin classics. Job 111. 9 BN®4 F &c. (not ΑΝ 1.) Ps, xxvi. 1. xliii, i 1 Tim. i. 11 only. k Col. i. 15. Rom. viii. 295 1 Cor. xi. 7 al. Gen. i. 26, 27. rec συνιστωντες, With D3KL rel: συνιστανοντες A(appy) BP 47. 67°. 80: txt CDF 17 { Euthal-ms |. (3. απολυμμενοις F 1 (17). | 4. διαυγασαι A ἃ 17 Eus, Archel,[-ed,] Cyr-jer, Damasc: katavy. CD[H] Orig, { Dial, Amphil,] Eus, (both glosses, further to particularize the simple verb): txt BFKLPR rel Orig, | Archel-ms, Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt Damase [Cyr-mss fluctuate hopelessly 1. rec adds αὐτοῖς, with D?-3[-gr] KL[P] rel [vulg-clem spec syrr goth eth] Orig, Chr, [Amphil, Thdrt]: om ABCD!F[H]X& 17 old-lat am(with demid fuld harl [tol]) Orig, Eus, Cyr-jer Epiph, Cyr[-p Archel, Euthal-ms] Iren-int, [Aug, ]. for χριστου, κυριου C. Col i. 15) LPR? a fl m 47 syr [goth] arm: men are ashamed, and which perhaps were made use of by the false teachers), not walking (having our daily conversation) in craftiness (see ref.) nor adulterating (see ch. ii. 17, note) the word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth (as our only means, see 1 Thess. ii. 8, 4;—the words come first, as emphatic), recommending ourselves (a recurrence to the charge and apology of ch. iii. 1 ff.) to (with reference to,—the verdict of) every conscience of men (every possible variety of the human conscience; implying, there is no conscience but will inwardly acknowledge this, how- ever loath some among you may be out- wardly to confess it. So that the expres- sion is not exactly = mp. τὴν συν. πάντων ἀνθρώπων. Weneed hardly extend av@p. so wide as Chrys. (Hom. viii. p. 493), οὐ... πιστοῖς μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal ἀπίστοις ἐσμὲν κατάδηλοι :—he is speaking as a teacher, and the men spoken of are naturally λὲς hearers and disciples), in the sight of God (as ch. ii. 17; not merely to satisfy men’s consciences, but with regard to God’s all- seeing eye which discerns the heart). 3.] But if (‘which I concede ;’—see note, 1 Cor. iv. 7) it is even so, that our gospel (the gospel preached by us) is vailed, it is among (in the estimation of) the perishing that it is vailed. The allegory of ch. iii. is continued,—the hiding of the gospel by the vail placed before the understanding. 4.| in whose case (it is true, that) the god of this world (the Devil, the ruling principle in the men of this world, see reff. for os, o F. aft του θεου ins του aopatou (see pref spec. It is historically curious, that Irenzeus (Her. iv. 39. 2, p. 266), Origen, Tertull. (contra Mare. iv. 11, vol. ii. p. 499), Chrys., Augustine (c. advers. leg. ii. 7 (29), vol. viii. p- 655), @icum., Theodoret, Theophylact, all repudiate, in their zeal against the Marcionites and Manichzeans, the gramma- tical rendering, and take τῶν ἀπίστων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου together) blinded (the aor. of a purely historial event) the under- standings of the unbelieving (i.e. who, the ἀπολλύμενοι, are victims of that blind- ing of the understandings of the unbeliev- ing, which the Devil is habitually carrying on. Meyer well remarks, that if it had merely been τὰ νοήματα, it would have only expressed in the concrete the νοήμ. of those signified by ἐν ois,—whereas now, by the addition of τῶν ἀπίστ., the blinding in- flicted on the ἀπολλ. is marked as falling under its category. The rendering τῶν ἀπίστων ‘so that they believe not,’ Fritz., Billroth, is out of all question) in order that the illumination of | shining from, gen. subj.) the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (recur- rence to the allegory of ch. iii. 18 ;—Christ is the image of God, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, Heb, i. 3, into which same image, τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα, we, looking on it m the mirror of the gospel, are changed by the Spirit ; but which glorious image is not visible to those who are blinded by Satan), might not shine forth ([see var. readd. The object of the god of this world was not merely to prevent them from being” (H iv. 4 deat ABCDF ΓΗΊΚΙ, PRrabe def gh klmno 17. 47 ΜΠ ἵν. 7 H?] 4 eye léautous ] t IPOs ™ κηρυσσομεν, ° εἰπὼν PEK σκότους 4 φῶς λάμψει, ὃς 4 ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις Ἵν ᾿ πρὸς 1 φωτισμὸν τῆς " γνώσεως τῆς " δόξης 1 τοῦ θεοῦ * 7] προςώπῳ ψριστ οὔ. 1 ’Beyower δὲ τὸν ἢ θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ἡ ὀστρακίνοις tech. ii. 10. Prov. viii. 30. x. 21. Luke vi. 45 als. vi. 28. Josh. vi. 19. KOPINOIOTS B. ἑαυτοὺς δὲ δούλους ὑμῶν "dia Inaodv. u Epp., Col. ii. 3. 65] » \ Ν ΕῚ lal / 5 ἀλλὰ χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν κύριον" 1. ii. ret A ἐὰν ae ‘ts Vili. 6 ὅτι δ' θεὸς 0 ee. o = James ii. p. “Ὁ ΧΧΧΥΊΪ. 4 Acks xii. 7 (reff.). Isa. 1x. 2. r=) Coro vite 35 reff. s see Hab. ii. 14, Gospp., Matt. ii. 11 418, Mark w as above (v) only. Levit. Heb. xi. 26 only. v 2 Tim. ii. 20. 5. ino. bef xp. ACDN vulg syr goth [(a#th) Aug,, and but] om κυρ. Pd: κυρ. χρ. #[ not F- lat]: om inv. 47: txt BLH]KL rel Syr copt arm Mcion-e,[and ms, | pee jer, Chr, [Cyr-p Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase Ambrst. nuwr(sic) & 17. for 2nd ἑησουν, moou A’CN! 17 Mcion-e, [Cyr-p,]: xpiorov X-corr! 5 [Cyr-p, ]. 6. om Ist ὁ Bi(sic: erased) X!. ΝῚ Clem,. vue Ὁ 3. 47 Chry. Cyr[-p] Tert, : see table) n | Mcion-e-ms,(ins,) ]. ree λαμψαι, with CD3F[H]KLPN? rel latt goth Mcion-e, Orig, Dial, Mac, [Ps ?- ]Ath, Chr, Cyr[-p Euthal-ms ]Thdrt Damase [Ter 67: om os D!F old-lat demid(and harl) Chr, Tert, Ambrst [Aug,]. for tov θεου, αὐτου ΟἹ D1/and lat] F[ (not F-lat) fri] eth Dial, txt ABC?D3[H|]KULP® rel [vulg F-lat syrr copt goth arm] (Orig,) aft εἰπὼν ins o (but txt AB θ[- κε] Ath, Chr (Euthal- ms] Thdrt Damase Ambr, Ambrst. (του θεου is certainly original ; for. as Meyer observes, had avtov been origl, it is hardly possible that του θεου should have been a gloss on it, as o θεος occurs just befure.) rec ins τήσου bef xp., with CLH]KLPR® rel tol [sy rr copt goth arm-ed] Orig, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc: aft xo. DF latt Cyr, [Ambr Ambrst Aug]: [ Cyr-p,-ms, ] Tert,. illuminated, but to stop the shining forth altogether]:—the rendering, ‘that they might not see,’ Grot., al., is inadmissible). 5, 6.] We have no reason to use trickery or craft, having no selfish ends to serve : nor concealment, being ourselves enlightened by God, and set for the spread- ing of light. 5.] For we preach not (the subject of our preaching is not) our- selves (Meyer understands κυρίους, ‘as lords ;? but as De W. observes, this would anticipate the development of thought which follows, the contrast between xp. Ἰησοῦν as κύριον, and ourselves as your δούλους, not being yet raised),—but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your ser- vants for Jesus” sake (on account of Him and His work). 6.1 Because (explains and substantiates the last clause,—that we are your servants for Jesus’ sake) (ἐέ és) God, who said Out of (not, ‘after the dark- ness ;? this meaning of éx, though allow- able, e.g. ἐκ κυμάτων yap αὖθις αὖ γάλην᾽ ὁρῶ, does not occur in N. T.) darkness light shall shine (allusion to Gen. i. 3: the change to λάμψαι appears to have been made because the words cited are not the exact ones spoken by the Creator), who shined (Grot., Fritz., Meyer, would render ἔλαμψεν, ‘caused light to shine,’ using the verb in the factitive sense, as ἀνατέλλω, Matt. v. 45, and ὦ λάμπουσα πέτρα πυρὸς δικόρυφον σέλας, Eur. Phen. 226. But this usage of the word seems entirely poeti- cal, and the intransitive sense would as well express the divine act) in our hearts (the om AB 17 arm-mss Orig, Dial, Ath, Chr, physical creation bearing an analogy to the spiritua') in order to the shining forth (to others) of the knowledge (in us) of the glory of God in the face of Christ (= τῆς δόξης τ. θεοῦ THS ἐν προεώπῳ xp., ‘the glory of God manifested in Christ’). The figure is still derived from the history in ch. ili., and refers to the brightness on the face of Moses :—the only true effulgence of the divine glory is from the face of Christ. Meyer contends for the connexion of ἐν mposwm. xp. with φωτισμόν, but his ex- planation fails to convey to my mind any satisfactor Ὕ sense. He says that when the γνῶσις is imparted by preaching, it shines, and its brightness illuminates the face of Christ, because it is His face whose glory is looked on in the mirror of preaching. But I cannot think that any thing so very far- fetched would be in the Apostle’s mind. As to the necessity of the art. τῆς before ev, none will assert it who are much versed in the many varieties of expression in such sentences in the Apostle’sstyle.. 7—18.] This glorious ministry is fulfilled by weak, afflicted, persecuted, and decaying vessels, which are moreover worn out in the work (7—12). Yet the spirit of faith, the hope of the resurrection, and of being presented with them, for whom he has laboured, bears him up against the decay of the outer man, and all present tribulation (13—18). We are not justified in assuming with Calvin, Estius, al., that a definite reproach of per- sonal meanness had induced the Apostle to speak thus. For he does not deal with any 652 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT® B. IV. , , “ , > tol A xActsix.15 ὟΣ σκεύ:σιν, ἵνα ἡ Y ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ἦ τοῦ θεοῦ ren. y Rom. vii. 13 x . 3 ς ες ΔΖ ΣΝ Ζ Woe f ’ ’ 27h q yRom. τῇ. 1 καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν * παντὶ * θλιβόμενοι ἀλλ οὐ ὥστε Antt. i. 18. 4. , > ΄ b) 5) 5) 2 U4 ΠῚ: νοχωρούμενοι, “ ἀπορούμενοι GAN οὐκ “ ἐξαπορούμενοι, z= ch. vi. 4 5 , vi. 9. ὁ διωκόμενοι GAN οὐκ ᾿ἐγκαταλειπόμενοι, © καταβαλ- ch. i. 6 reff. , ’ ΄ / \ Pay 4 Sch Mie (bis) NOMEVOL GAN οὐκ ἃ ἀπολλύμενοι, 10 πάντοτε THY ' νεκρωσιν only. Josh. xvii. 15. Isa. xxviii. 20. xlix.19 only. (-pta, Rom. ii. 9.) c Acts xxv. 20 reff. ἃ ch. i. 8 only. Ps. lxxvii. 15 only. Ps. xv. 10), 31. 2 Tim. iv. 10, 16. ili. 19. h = Matt. il. 13 al. fr. 9. εγκαταλιμιπανομενοι F Eus, Chr, Max,. such reproach here, but with matters com- mon to all human ministers of the word. All this is a following out in detail of the οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν of ver. 1, already en- larged on in one of its departments,—that of not shrinking from openness of speech, —and now to be put forth in another, viz. bearing up against outward and inward difficulties. If any polemical purpose is to be sought, it is the setting forth of the abundance of sufferings, the glorying in weakness (ch. xi. 23, 30), which substan- tiated his apostolic mission: but even such purpose is only in the background ; he is pouring out, in the fulness of his heart, the manifold discouragements and the far more exceeding encouragements of his office. 7.] τὸν Oyo. ToUT., viz. ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, ver. 6. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πολλὰ Kal μεγάλα εἶπε περὶ τῆς ἀποῤῥήτου δόξης" ἵνα μή τις λέγῃ Καὶ πῶς τοσαύτης δόξης ἀπολαύοντες μέ- vouev ἐν θνητῷ σώματι; φησὶν ὅτι τοῦτο μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ μάλιστά ἐστι τὸ θαυμαστόν, καὶ δεῖγμα μέγιστον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως, ὅτι σκεῦος ὀστράκινον τοσαύτην ἠδυνήθη λαμπρότητα ἐνεγκεῖν, καὶ τηλικοῦτον φυ- λάξαι θησαυρόν. Chrys. p. 496. Some (Calv., al.) think the θησ. to be the whole διακονία : but it seems simpler to refer it to that which has immediately preceded, in a style like that of Paul, in which each successive idea so commonly evolves itself out of the last. The σκεῦος is the body, not the whole personality ; the 6 ἔξω ἄν- θρωπος of ver. 16; see ver.10. And in the troubles of the body the personality shares, as long as it is bound up with it here. The similitude and form of expression is illustrated by Wetst. from Artemidorus vi. 25, θάνατον μὲν yap εἰκότως ἐσήμαινε τῇ γυναικὶ τὸ εἶναι ἐν ὀστρακίνῳ σκεύει,-- Arrian, Epict. iii. 9, ταῦτα ἔχω ἀντὶ τῶν ἀργυρωμάτων, ἀντὶ τῶν χρυσωμάτων: σὺ χρυσὰ σκεύη, ὀστράκινον δὲ τὸν λόγον, and Herod. iii. 96, τοῦτον τὸν φόρον θησαυρίζει ὁ. βασιλεὺς τρόπῳ τοιῷδε. ἐς πίθους κε- ραωίους τήξας καταχέει, πλήσας δὲ τὸ ἄγγος περιαιρέει, ἐπεὰν δὲ δεηθῇ χρημά- των, κατακόπτει τοσοῦτον, ὅσου ἂν ἑκά- στοτε δέηται. ἡ ὑὕπερβ. τῆς Suv. not = ἣ ὑπερβάλλουσα δύναμις, but, the e = 1Cor. iv. 12 reff. Heb. xiii. 5. 1 Chron. xxviii. 20. i Rom. iv. 19 only t. f Matt. xxvii. 46 || Mk. Acts ii, 27 (from g = here (Heb. vi. 1) only. 4 Kings δύναμις contemplated on the side of its brepBodAH,—the power consisting in the effects of the apostolic ministry (1 Cor. ii. 4), as well as in the upholding under trials and difficulties. The passage com- monly referred to (even by Stanley) to prove the hendiadys, may serve entirely to disprove it: Jos. Antt. i. 18. 4, μαθὼν δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόθυμον κ. τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς θρησκείας : ‘the readiness and surpassing- ness of his obedience.” ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ] may belong to (i.e. be seen to belang to) God. Tertull., Vulg., and Estius, render it ‘ut sublimitas sit virtutis Dei, non ex nobis,’ which is hardly allowable, and dis- turbs the sense by confusing the antithesis between 6 θεός and ἡμεῖς. 8 —10.] He illustrates the expression, ‘ earthen vessels,’ in detail, by his own experience and that of the other ministers of Christ. 8.1 in every way (see reff.) pressed, but not (inextricably) crushed (στ. ‘an- gustias ἢ. 1. denotat tales, e quibus non detur exitus,’ Meyer, from Kypke) ;—in perplexity but not in despair (a literal statement of what the last clause stated Jiguratively : as Stanley, “bewildered, but not benighted’’):—persecuted but not deserted (ἐγκαταλειπόμενοι, see retf., used of desertion both by God and by man. Hammond, Olsh., Stanley, al., would refer διωκόμ. eee to the foot-race, and render it ‘pursued, but not left behind, as Herod. viii. 59, of δέ γε ἐγκαταλειπόμενοι ov στε- pavodytai,—but the sense thus would be quite beside the purpose, as the Apostle is speaking not of rivalry from those who as runners had the same end in view, but of troubles and persecutions): struck down (as with a dart during pursuit: so Xen. Cyr. i. 8. 14, θηρία .... τοξεύων καὶ ἀκοντίζων καταβαλεῖς. It is ordinarily interpreted of a fall in wrestling; but agonistic figures would be out of place in the present passage, and the attempt to find them has bewildered most of the modern Commentators), but not destroyed: 10.] always carrying about in our body (i.e. ever in our apostolic work having our body exposed to and an example of : or perhaps even, as Stanley, “ bearing with us, wherever we go, the burden of the’ ABCDF KLPR a bedef ghklm no 17. 47 8.15. ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. 653 faa | ipa fis Nak , k / (ae oN 0) ζωὴ ; , τοῦ Ἰησοῦ !} ἐν τῷ " σώματι * περιφέροντες, ἵνα καὶ ἡ * ζωὴ j Gal. νἱ. 11. a 5 A 2 A , ς A m θῇ" 1} a \ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν ™ φανερωθῇ ἀεὶ yap ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες " εἰς θάνατον ™ παραδιδόμεθα ° διὰ Ἰησοῦν, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ' ζωὴ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ™ φανερωθῇ ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν. reff, n Matt. x. 21. vi. 12 reff. q Rom. vii. 5 reff. Mark xiii. 12. k Mark vi. 53. Eph. iv. 14 (Heb. xiii. 9, and Jude 12 v. r.] only. Prov. x. 24. Eccl. vii. 8. 2 Mace. vii. 27 only. 12 [4 « θ / ’ Ε aA“ q » “Ὁ «ες δὲ ὥςτε ὁ θάνατος ἐν ἡμῖν 4 ἐνεργειταὶ, ἢ O€ 1“ Rom. v.10. m Rom. i. 19 Isa. liii. 12 a. o ver. 5. p Rom. 10. rec ins κυρίου bef Ist moov, with KI rel [flor] syr goth Chr, Thdrt Damase Tert, Ambrst-ms: om ABCDFP® 17 (latt) Syr copt eth arm Origsepe [Eus, Nys, Euthal-ms] Cyr, Iren-int, Tert,.—xpiorov D!F(and their lat) [eth] Orig-int, Tert, : xp. ino. D? Tert,. int, Orig-int, [Tert, Ambrst]. [fri] Orig,. [copt Cyr-p,] Tert;. 11. for ae, εἰ F Κα [Syr] Tert, Ambrst. om καὶ Co 8 Tert,. att Ist σωματι ins μων DF [latt(not am!) Syr copt arm] Iren- aft 2nd (του) ino. ins χριστου D!(and lat) ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat} (spec) Iren-int Orig-int, [Ambr, ].—om του F. τοις σωμασιν [2nd] δὲ νὰ] φανερωθη bef ev τω σωματι ἡμὼων A vulg(not am fuld demid [{0]}} for παραδιδ., διδομεθα Fl -gr]. for του ino., ins. xptorov D}(and lat) ΕἸ ποῦ F-lat|: tov xp. C. 12. [om] o [X}(insd] over the line [eadem manu, | appy) [ Damasc]. rec ins μεν bef θανατος (to correspond to δὲ below), with KL rel syr-w-ob ΤῺ] Ge Ambrst-ms: om ABCDFPR 17 latt copt (goth) arm Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc lat-ff. dead body.’’ But see below) the killing (the word seems only to occur besides, in ref. Rom., where it signifies, figura- tively, utter lack of strength and vital power, in a fragment of the Oneirocritica of Astrampsychus (Meyer), νεκροὺς δρῶν, νέκρωσιν ἕξεις πραγμάτων, where the sense is also figurative, and in its primary phy- sical sense in the medical works of Are- teens and Galen. But here the literal sense, ‘the being put to death,’ must evidently be kept, and the expression understood as 1 Cor. xv. 31, and as Chrys.: of θάνατοι ot καθημερινοί, δι ὧν Kal ἡ ἀνάστασις ἐδείι- νυτο. Hom. ix. p. 498. The rendering, ‘the deadness of Jesus to the flesh, as opposed to the vitality, 7 ζωὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ below,’—see Dr. Peile’s Annotations on the Epistles, i. 383,—is beside the present purpose, and altogether inconsistent with ἀεὶ εἰς θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν, ver. 11. See Stanley’s note) of Jesus (as τὰ παθήματα τοῦ χριστοῦ, ch. i. 5 :—not ‘ad exemplum Christi,’ as Grot., al.), in order that also the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body: i.e. ‘that in our bodies, holding up agaiast such troubles and preserved in such dangers, may be shewn forth that mighty power of God which is a testimony that Jesus lives and is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour :’— not, ‘that our repeated deliverances might resemble His Resurrection, as our suffer- ings His Death,’ as Meyer, who argues that the literal meaning must be retained, as in the other member of the comparison, owing to ἐν τῷ σώματι ju. But, as De W. justly observes, the bodily deliverance is manifestly a subordinate consideration, and the ζωή of far higher significance, testified indeed by the body’s preservation, but extending far beyond it. 11.] Ex- planation and confirmation of ver. 10. For we who live (ζῶντες asserting that to which death is alien and strange, an an- tithesis to εἰς θάνατον παραδ., as in the other clause ζωή to ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκί. No more specific meaning for ζῶντες must be imagined, as ‘tantis mortibus super- stitem, Bengel, Estius, al.,—or ‘as long as we live,’ Beza, al.,—or ‘ qui adhuc vivi- mus, qui nondum ex vita excessimus ut multi gam Christianorum,’ as Grot.) are alway being delivered to death (in dangers and persecutions, so ch. xi. 23, ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκι5) on account of Jesus (so in Rev. i. 9 John was in Patmos διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ κ. διὰ THY μαρτυρίαν *Incod), that also the life of Jesus may be mani- fested in our mortal flesh (the antithesis is more strongly put by θνητῇ σαρκί than it would be by θνητῷ σώματι, see Rom. viii. 11, the flesh being the very pabulum of decay and corruption). By this anti- thesis, the wonderful greatness of the divine power, 7 ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως, is strikingly brought out: God exhibits DeEaTH in the diving, that He may exhibit LiFe in the dying. 12.] By it is also brought out that which is here the immediate subject,—the vast and unex- ampled trials of the apostolic office, all summed up in these words: So that death works in us, but life in you; ie. ‘the trials by which the dying of Jesus is ex- hibited in us, are exclusively and pecu- liarly OUR OWN,—whereas (and this is decisive for the spiritual sense of ζωή) the life, whereof we are to be witnesses, ex- tends beyond ourselves, nay finds its field of action and energizing ἘΝ YoU.’ Estius, Grot., and apparently Olsh., take évepyet- 051 ΤΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS B. TV. \ ΄ rl 9 Ν \ Ν rt na r = ἃ constr.» | ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν. 15 ἔχοντες δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ " πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως om. vill. ὃ \ Ἀ , » , τεῆς. 1.8. κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον "᾿πίστευσα, διὸ ἐλάλησα, καὶ s Psa. cxv. l. ς - / \ \ - ͵ s Psu cry) ἡμεῖς πιστεύομεν, διὸ καὶ λαλοῦμεν, 13 εἰδότες ὅτε ὁ 41 Cor, xv. 4 > / \ , > J A Ν ς΄ “ \ ’ A a cor αν 4 t éveipas τὸν [κύριον] ᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς σὺν Ἰησοῦ * ἐγερεῖ Isa. xxvi. 19. 13. aft 1st 5:0 ins καὶ FN syrr goth arm [Epiph, Aug,(om})]. 14. om κυριον B 17. 71-3 vulg(with am fuld demid al, agst tol F-lat) arm Chr-comm Tert, Pel Sedul Bede: ins CDF KLPR rel D-lat(and G-'at, but not fri) (Chr, Euthal- ms Thdrt Damase Ambrst ]. ree (for συν) δια (corrn on account of the difficulty found in σὺν Ἰησοῦ being joined to a future verb, His Resurrn being past), with D3[-gr] KLN3 rel syrr goth [Chr,] Thdrt Damase: txt BCD! FPR! 17 latt copt xth arm [Euthal-ms] (Tert,) Ambr, Ambrst(not ed rom) Pel Bede.—In δὲ a superfluous « has been written and erased before εὖ. constituit goth. ται passively, ‘is wrought ’ (‘ mors agitur et exercetur . . . perficitur vita.’ Est.): but it is never so used in N. T. Chrys., Calv., al., take the verse ironically, τὰ μὲν ἐπικίν- Suva ἡμεῖς ὑπομένομεν, τῶν δὲ χρηστῶν ὑμεῖς aGmoAavere,—but such a sentiment seems alien from the spirit of the passage. Meyer, as unfortunately, limits ζωή to natural life, whereas (as above) the context plainly evinces spiritual life to be meant, not merely natural. In Rom. viii. 10, 11, the vivifying influence of His Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead is spoken of as extending to the body also; here, the upholding influence of Him who delivers and preserves the body, is spoken of as vivifying the whole man: LIFE, in both places, being the higher and spiritual life, including the lower and natural. ‘ And, in our relative positions,—of this life, YE are the examples,—a church of believers, alive to God through Christ in your various vocations, and not called on to be Gearpi(é- μενοι [cf. 1 Cor. iv. 9; Heb. x. 33] as WE are, who are (not indeed excluded from that life,—nay it flows from us to you, —but are) more especially examples of conformity to the death of our common . Lord :—in whom DEATH WORKS.’ 18—18.] EncoursGEMENTS: and (1) FAITH, which enables us to go on preach- ing to you. Meyer connects this verse with ἡ δὲ ΔΝ ἐν ὑμῖν : for, he says, by means of πιστεύομεν διὸ Kal λαλοῦμεν, is that ζωὴ ἐν im. ἐνεργεῖται, wrought. But, not to mention that thus the context is strangely disturbed, in which we and our trials form the leading subject, it would surely be very unnatural that ἔχοντες δέ should apply not to the principal but to the subordinate clause of the foregoing verse. But (contrast to the foregoing state of trial and working of death in us) having the same spirit of faith (not distinctly the Holy Spirit,—but as in reff., not merely a human disposition: the indwell- ing Holy Spirit penetrates and character- izes the whole renewed man) with that εγιρει D'F [ἐγειρει ῬΊ, suscitat et described in the Scriptures (τὸ αὐτὸ κατὰ τὸ yeyp., i.e. either as Billroth, τὸ αὐτὸ (ἐκείνῳ) περὶ οὗ γέγραπται, or as De W., = τὸ αὐτὸ ὡς γέγρ., ὥςπερ being sume- times found after 6 αὐτός, ἴσος, and the like, and κατὰ here being equivalent to it. I prefer the former: but at all events the connexion of τὸ αὐτό and κατὰ τὸ γὙεγρ. must be maintained, and we must not, with Meyer, connect κατὰ τὸ yeyp. . .. with kal ἡμεῖς πιστεύομεν, which makes the Apostle say that his faith is according to the words of the citation, and thus con- fuses the whole process of thought), I be- lieved, wherefore I spoke (the connexion of the words in the Psalm is not clear, nor the precise meaning of »3, rendered by the LXX διό. See Pool’s Synopsis in loe. for the various renderings), we too believe, wherefore we also speak (continue our preaching of the gospel, notwithstanding such vast hindrances within and without): 14.) knowing (fixes and expands in detail the indefinite πιστεύομεν, and thus gives the ground of λαλοῦμεν,--- ποῦ as commonly understood, the matter of which we speak) that He who raised up (from the dead) the Lord Jesus, will raise up us also (from the dead hereafter, see 1 Cor. vi. 13, 14:—not in a figurative resurrec- tion from danger, as Beza, who afterwards changed his opinion, al., and lately Meyer, whose whole interpretation of this passage is singularly forced, and his defence of it unfair, see below) with Jesus (σὺν Ἰησοῦ is not necessarily figurative, as Meyer ; even in the passages where a figurative sense is the prevailing one, it is only as built upon the fact of a literal ‘ raising with Christ,’ to be accomplished at the great day: see Eph. ii. 6; Col. iii. 1, 3; 1 Thess. ν. 10) and present us with you (i. e. as in Jude 24, τῷ δυναμένῳ... στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἔν ἀγαλλιάσει - -.» and in reff., at the day of His coming). Meyer’s objection to the meaning above given,—that the Apostle could not thus speak of the resurrection, oe YE- γραμ.- μενον Α. BCDFK LPRab cdefg hkimn ο 17. 47 15—16. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS B. 655 \ u ΄ 3 \ ς r 15 A \ / oe al 6 ὧδ ΞΕ 7 . La W=, ch, xi. 2: Kab TAPACT JOEL συν υμιν Ta Yap TAaVTaA Ou υμας, Wa E a) hy f Yor 4 bia αὶ στῶν ὅπλ 4 eb ey Mis 22, ἡ " χάρις " πλεονάσασα διὰ δ τῶν “ πλειόνων THY ὃ εὐχαρι- y Rom. νοὶ fo , ‘ ͵ A A a \ refi. ). στίαν Ymepiccevon εἰς τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 16 διὸ οὐκ wiCor.ix.19 > A > cae fe , CuNiey rele a 2 ἐγκακοῦμεν, ἀλλ᾿’ δ εἰὶ δ᾽ καὶ ὁ "ἔξω ἡμῶν ὃ" ἄνθρωπος "Ἀπ : ’ e Y €. ka 3 A y transit., ch. © διαφθείρεται, ἀλλ᾿ 40 4écw([Gev] ἡμῶν © ἀνακαινοῦται ’ ὌΝ Eph. 1, ess. iii. 12 only $. intr., Rom. v. 15 al. zver.1. — a ver. 3. b here only. see Rom. vii. 22 reff. ce Luke xii. 33. 1 Tim. vi. 5. Rev. viii. 9. xi. 18 only. 2Kingsi.14. Dan. vii. 14 Theod. dsee1Cor. v.12 reff. [-θεν, = Luke xi. 39, 40 only.} e Col. iii. 10 only+. (-νέίζειν, Heb. vi.6. Ps. cii. 5.) 15. B! wrote rap [for τα yap] (whence Mai gives an omn of ra) but corrd perhaps eadem manu. 16. rec εκκακουμεν (see ver 1), with CD3KLP rel: txt BDFN e m. εζωθεν Dlr 73. 137 Bas,[txt, ] Thdrt,(txt,). for διαφθειρ., φθειρεται KL a? ἃ 46}-7. 114. ecw (for uniformity ?) BCD!F PS ἃ m 47 Orig, Ath, Chr, [Bas,; Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damase: ἐσωθεν D?KL rel [Nys, Bas,] Thdrt, Thl Gc. (17 def.) rec om [ Ist | ἡμῶν, with KL rel latt(not G-lat) Syr copt goth Orig,[-intsepe | Ath Chr [Euthal-ms | Thdrt, Thl Ze Tert, Lucif Ambrst : ins (for uniformity ?) B CL αλλ εἰ to ἡμων is written over an erasure, Clehaving appy omd ἡμων] D[-gr] F[-gr] δὲ [m] syr eth arm Thdrt,. because he expected (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; i. 8; ch. i. 13, 14) to be alive at the day of Christ, is best refuted by this very passage, ch. v. 1 ff., where his admission of at least the possibility of his death is distinctly set forth. The fact is that the ἐγερεῖ here, having respect rather to the contrast of the future glory with the present suffering, does not necessarily imply one or other side of the alternative of being quick or dead at the Lord’s coming, but embraces all, quick and dead, in one blessed resurrection-state. This confidence, of being presented at that day σὺν ὑμῖν, is only analogous to his expressions else- where; see ch.i.14; 1 Thess. ii. 19, 20; iii. 13. 15.] Explanation of σὺν ὑμῖν as a ground of his trust: with reference also to ἡ δὲ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν, ver. 12; viz. that all, both the sufferings and victory of the ministers, are for the church: see the parallel expression, ch. i. 6, 7. For all things (of which we have been speaking ; or perhaps hyperbolically, ALL THINGS, the whole working and arrangements of God, as in 1 Cor. iii. 22, εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα εἴτε μέλλοντα, πάντα ὑμῶν) are on your be- half, that Grace, having abounded by means of the greater number (who have received it), may multiply the thanks- giving (which shall accrue), to the glory of God. Such (1) is the rendering of Meyer, and, in the main, of Chrys., Erasm., al., and recently, Riickert and Olshausen. Three other ways are possible ; (2) ‘ that Grace, having abounded, may, on account of the thanksgiving of the greater number, be multiplied (‘ πλεονάζω habet vim posi- tivi: περισσεύω, comparativi,’ Bengel) to the glory of God.’ So Luther, Beza, Es- tius, Grot., Bengel, 8]. : --- (8) ‘ that Grace, © having abounded, may, by means of the greater number, multiply the thanksgiving to the glory of God.” So Emmerling and De Wette :—(4) ‘that Grace having mul- tiplied (see 1 Thess. iii. 12, for the transitive sense) by means of the greater number the thanksgiving, may abound to the glory of God.’ This last has not been suggested by any Commentator that I am aware of, but is adiissible. I prefer (1), as best agreeing with the position of the words, and with the emphases. If (2) had been intended, I should have expected iva πλεονάσασα ἣ χάρις,--πλεονάσασα in its present position standing awkwardly alone. The same remark applies to (38), and this besides, that in that case I should expect πλειόνων, and not τῶν πλ., in which the art. rather regards the matter of fact, the many who have received the grace, or who give thanks, than the intention, to multiply the thanksgiving by the (possible) greater number of per- sons. If (4) had been intended, I should have looked for ἵνα 7 χάρις Thy εὐχαρι- στίαν πλεον. διὰ τῶν πλει., περισσ. K.T.A. By adopting (1), we keep the words and emphases just where they stand: ἵνα 7 χάρις, πλεονάσασα διὰ τῶν πλειόνων (not διὰ τ. πλ. πλεον., which would give an undue prominence to διὰ τῶν πλειόν., whereas those words only particularize πλεονάσασα), τὴν εὐχ. περισσεύσῃ, εἰς τὴν δόξαν τ. θεοῦ. As to the sense, (see the very similar sentiment, ch. i. 11,) thanks- giving is the highest and noblest offering of the Church to God’s glory (θυσία aive- σεως δοξάσει με, Ps. xlix. 23, LXX): that this may be rendered, in the best sense, as the result of the working of grace which has become abundant by means of the many recipients, is the great end of the Christian ministry. 16—18. | Second ground of encouragement—HOPE. 16.] Wherefore (on account of the hope implied in the faith spoken of ver. 14, which he is about to expand) we do not 656 f here only. (see note.) g neut., 1 Cor. i. 25 &c. reff. h here only. Ps. lxix. 3. Tobit tv. 14 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. TV. ee θλίψεως ἡμῶν © καθ᾽ Εἰ ὑπερβολὴν ὃ εἰς * ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον c only(Nomits Ρ ἡ μῶν τὰ ᾿ βλεπόμενα ἀλλὰ τὰ μὴ * βλεπόμενα" τὰ γὰρ vv. 6—19). i Matt. xi. 30 only. Exod. xvili. 26. (-dpta, ch. i. 7.) n = Rom. ii. 7 reft. ii. 4, (Rom. xvi. 17 reff.) k here only. o — Rom. iv. 15 reff. 1 Rom. vii. 13 reff. r = Rom. viii. 24. t βλεπόμενα SaposKkaipa, τὰ δὲ μὴ " βλεπόμενα αἰώνια. (Acts xv. 28 reff.) q = Phil. Heb. xi. 25 only t. m = here only. Pp constr., see Acts xxi. 17 reff. s Matt. xiii. 21 | Mk. 17. ins προβκαιρον kat bef ελαφρον D'F latt (Syr) goth arm Orig-int, [Ambrst Augatic ]. (Thdrt says: διὰ τοῦ παραυτίκα ἔδειξε τὸ βραχύ τε καὶ mpdskaipov.) (appy : see Tischdf’s Cod Ephr) [Syr] Chr. 38. 80 [syr copt goth eth arm]. 18. for σκοπ. nuwy, σκοπουντες D' ΕΓ ποῦ F-lat] D-lat. om ἡμων BC2 om εἰς utepBoAnv C1KR!(ins X-corr!) aft mposkaipa ins ἐστιν F, so also latt [D-lat aft αἰων.} Orig-int;[(om,) Ambrst]. shrink (as in ver. 1: but now, owing to despair), but (on the contrary) though even (not ‘ even tf,’ putting a case; εἰ καί with ind. asserts the fact, as in εἰ καὶ σπέν- δομαι, Phil. ii. 17) our outward man is [being] wasted away (i.e. our body, see Rom. vii. 22, is, by this continued νέκρωσις and ἐνέργεια tov θανάτου, being worn out :—he is not as yet speaking of dissolu- tion by death, but only of gradual approxi- mation to it), yet (ἀλλά in the apodosis after a hypothetic clause, introduces a strong and marked contrast :—so Hom. Il. a. 81,--οἴπερ γάρ te χόλον γε καὶ αὐτῆμαρ καταπέψῃ, ἀλλά τε καὶ μετόπισθεν ἔχει κότον, ὄφρα τελέσσῃ : see other ex- amples in Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 40) our inner (man) is [being] renewed (contrast, subordinately to διαφθείρεται, but mainly to ἐγκακοῦμεν) day by day (nu. καὶ ἣμ., so Hebr. DY) DY, Esth. ili. 4; an expression not found (Meyer) even in the LXX): i.e. ‘our spiritual life, the life which testifies the life of Jesus, even in our mortal bodies (ver. 11), is continually fed with fresh accessions of grace :’ see next verse. So Chrys.,—a@s ἀνακαινοῦται; τῇ πίστει, TH ἐλπίδι, TH προθυμίᾳ, τὸ λοιπὸν δεῖ (al. τῷ λοιπὸν) κατατολμᾷν τῶν δεινῶν. ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν μυρία πάσχῃ τὸ σῶμα, τοσούτῳ χρηστοτέρας ἔχει τὰς ἐλπίδας ἢ ψυχή, καὶ λαμπροτέρα γίνεται, καθάπερ χρυσίον πυ- ρούμενον ἐπιπλέον. p. 500. 17, 18.] Method of this renewal. For the pre- sent light (burden) of our affliction (the adject. use of παραυτίκα is common with Thucyd., e. g. ii. 64, ἢ παραυτίκα Aau- πρότης, καὶ és τὸ ἔπειτα δόξα: viii. 82, τήν τε παραυτίκα ἐλπίδα : vii. 71, ἐν τῷ παραυτίκα, where Schol. ἐν τῷ ἐνεστῶτι τότε xpévm;—and with his imitator Demosthenes, 6. 5. p. 72. 16, 7 παραυτίχ᾽ ἡδονὴ K. ῥᾳστώνη μεῖζον ἰσχύει τοῦ ποθ᾽ ὕστερον συνοίσειν μέλλοντος ;—see also pp. 34. 24; 215. 10: and more examples in Wetst. ἐλαφρόν as a substantive, contrasted with βάρος ; see reff.), works out for us (‘efficit, ‘is the means of bringing about’) in @ surpassing and still more surpassing manner (καθ. ὑπ. eis ὕπερ. must belong to the verb, as Meyer and De W.; for otherwise it can only qualify αἰώνιον, the idea of which for- bids such qualification, not βάρος, which is separated from it by the adjective :— i.e. so as to exceed beyond all measure the tribulation) an eternal weight of glory (αἰώνιον βάρος opposed to παραυτίκα ἐλαφρόν). 18.1 Subjective condition under which this working out takes place. While we regard not (‘propose not as our aim,’ ‘spend not our care about,’— reff.) the things which are seen (ref. = τὰ ἐπίγεια, Phil. iii. 19: Chrys. strikingly says, ubi sup., τὰ βλεπόμενα πάντα, κἂν κόλασις ἢ, κἂν ἀνάπαυσις" ὥςτε μήτε ἐκεῖθεν χαυνοῦσθαι, μήτε ἐντεῦθεν βιάζεσθαι), but the things which are not seen (‘aliud significat ἀόρατα, invisibilia, nam multa que non cernuntur, erunt visibilia, con- fecto itinere fidei.’ Bengel. μὴ BA., not ov, perhaps because μή stands with participles in clauses of a subjective cha- racter, SO στήκετε... . - μὴ πτυρόμενοι ev pndevrt..., Phil. i. 27, 28. Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 55. 5. g. 8,—or rather perhaps, as ib. a, as hypothetie (see also Moulton’s note, p. 606. 1): τὰ οὐ βλεπόμ. would be the things which as a matter of fact at any given time we do not see, cf. ot οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, 1 Pet. ii. 10: τὰ μὴ BA., generally and hypothetically, the things not seen. So 6 μὴ dv μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, Matt. xii. 30, in a case indefinite and hypothetical. This amounts to much the same as when in the ordinary account of such clauses, we say that μή belongs to the subject, od to the predicate,—but is a better explanation, inasmuch as that account gives only the logical fact,—this, the logical reason of the usage): for the things which are seen are temporary (not ‘temporal,’ belonging to time,’ but ‘ fleeting,’ ‘only for a time,’ see reff. ;—i. e. till the day of Christ): but ε , , \ . = ἡμέρᾳ ἴ καὶ ἴ ἡμέρᾳ. 17 ὃ τὸ yap "παραυτίκα ' ἐλαφρὸν τῆς BCDFK PRab defg m ’ n ’ ο ΄ ὅρῳ. 18 Ἁ ΄ ἢ ΚΙ ἢ βάρος » δόξης ° κατεργάζεται P ἡμῖν, 18 μὴ ἃ σκοπούντων ο 17. 47 Vou V. 1 toléapev ἡδὺ * σκήνους Υ καταλυθῇ. 8 ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. only +. Wisd.ix.15 only. (-νωμα, Acts vii. 46. z = 1Cor. iii. 9 reff. vi. 14. Ezrze v. 12. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. ὅτι ἐὰν ἡ ἃ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν * οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ ἔχομεν. ν οἰκίαν "Ἱ 1 Gor. αν. 40 657 ¥ οἰκία TOU eaeni. vii. 14 = Jobiiv: 19. pyre 23.) x here bis Matt. xxyi. 61 ||. Col. 11. 11 only +. 2 καὶ yap ἐν -νοῦν, John i. 14). Acts MoS a Mark xiv. 58. Cuap. V. 1. ins ott bef οἰκοδομὴν DF latt goth Chr,;om,] Cypr, Ambrst je Sedul (not fri [Orig-int,] Tert Aug al). factam ([latt]). the things which are not seen are eternal. Chrys. again : κἂν βασιλεία, κἂν κόλασις ἢ πάλιν: ὥςτε καὶ ἐκεῖθεν φοβῆσαι, καὶ εκεῖσε (al. ἐντεῦθεν) προτρέψασθαι, ib. Seneca, Ep. 59 (Wetst.), has a very similar sentiment: ‘ista imaginaria sunt, et ad tempus aliquam faciem ferunt. Nihil horum stabile nec solidum est . . . Mit- tumus animum ad ea, que eterna sunt.’ Cuap. V. 1—10.] Further specification of the hope before spoken of, as consisting in anticipation of an eternity of glory after this life, in the resurrection-body : which leads him evermore to strive to be found well pleasing to the Lord at His coming: seeing that all shall then receive the things done in the body. 1.| For (gives the reason of ch. iv. 17,—principally of the emphatic words of that verse, καθ᾽ ὕπερ- βολὴν eis bnepB.,—shewing how it is that so wonderful a process takes place) we know (as in ch. iv. 14,—are convinced, as a sure matter of hope) that if (‘supposing ;’ —not = κἄν, ‘etiamsi,’ but indefinite and doubtful : if this delivering to death con- tinually should end in veritable death. The case is hypothetical, because many will be glorified without the κατάλυσις taking place: see 1 Cor. xv, 51, 53) our earthly tabernacle-dwelling (τοῦ σκήνους is gen. of apposition. The similitude is not de- rived from the wandering of the Israelites in the wilderness, nor from the tabernacle, but is a common one with Greek writers, see examples in Wetstein. “The whole passage is expressed through the double figure of a house or tent, and a garment. The explanation of this abrupt transition from one to the other may be found in the image which, both from his occupation and his birthplace, would naturally occur to the Apostle,—the tent of Cilician hair- cloth, which might almost equally suggest the idea of a habitation and of | a vesture.”” Stanley. Chrys. observes: εἰπὼν οἰκίαν σκήνους, kal τὸ εὐδιάλυτον Kal mpdskaipov δείξας ἐντεῦθεν, ἀντέθηκε τὴν αἰωνίαν" τὸ γὰρ τῆς σκηνῆς ὄνομα τὺ πρόξκαιρον πολλάκις δείκνυσι. Hom. x. p. 506) were dissolved (‘mite verbum,’ Bengel: i. e. ‘taken down, ‘done away with: but ‘ dissolved, as well as the vulg. ‘dis- solvatur, is right), we have in the heavens (as Meyer rightly remarks, the Vou, HH, ins οὐκ bef αχειροποιητον F (non manu- present is used of the time at which the dissolution shall have taken place. But even then the dead have it not in actual possession, but only prepared by God for them against the appearing of the Lord: and therefore they are said to have it in the heavens. Chrys., &c., Beza, Grot., al., join ἐν tots ovp. with οἰκίαν, which can hardly be: it would be either ἐπουράνιον or ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. The Εἰ. V. according to the present punctuation, yields no sense: ‘not made with hands, eternal in the heavens’) a building (no longer a σκῆνος) from God (‘in an especial manner prepared by God,’ ‘pure from God’s hands: not as contrasted with our earthly body, which, see 1 Cor. xii. 18, 24, is also from God), a dwelling not made with hands (here again, not as contrasted with the fleshly body, for that too is ἀχειροποίητος, but with other οἰκίαι, which are χειροποίητοι. Remember again the Apostle’s occupation of a tent-maker), eternal. A difficulty has been raised by some Commentators respecting the intermediate disembodied state,—how the Apostle here regards it, or whether he regards it at all. But none need be raised. The οἰκία which in this verse is said, at the time of dissolution, to be ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, is, when we put it on, in the next verse, our οἰκητήριον τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Thus the intermediate state, though lightly passed over, as not belonging to the subject, is evidently in the mind of St. Paul. Some Commentators, Photius, Anselm, Thomas Aq. (in Estius), Wolf, Rosenm., al., understand these words themselves (oik. ἄχειρ. αἰών. ἐν τ. vip.) of the intermediate state of absence from the body; Usteri and Flatt, of an immediate glorified body in heaven, to be united with the body of the resurrection. Calvin hesi- tates : “Incertum est, an significet statum beatze immortalitatis, qui post mortem fide- les manet, an vero corpus incorruptibile et gloriosum, quale post resurrectionem erit. In utrovis sensu nihil est incommodi: quanquam malo ita accipere, ut initium hujus zdificii sit beatus anime status post mortem: consummatio autem sit gloria ultimz resurrectionis.” But if this be so, (1) the parallel will not hold, between the οἰκία in one case, and the οἰκία in the other,—and (2) the language of ver. 2 is Uv 6938 7 b Rom. viii. 23 TOUTW ren. e Jude 6 only. (Jer. xxxil. [xxv.] 30 Ald.) d here bis ouly t+. (-δύτης, John xxi. 7.) { Gal. iii. 4. Eph. iii. 2. iv. 21. Col. i. 23 only. εἰπερ, Rom. viii. 9 reff. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. V. ΄ , a A > lal > σστενάζομεν, TO “ οἰκητήριον ἡμῶν TO ἐξ οὐρανοῦ BCDFK > Lal © > \ / ἃ ἐπενδύσασθαι " ἐπιποθοῦντες" 2 ἘΠ εἴ ἴ γε καὶ δ ἐνδυσάμενοι e w. inf., Rom. i. 11 reff. g 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54 reff. 3. * εἴπερ BDF 17 mss-in-Chr.(rits δέ φασιν, ὃ καὶ μάλιστα ἐγκριτέον, Εἴπερ καὶ ρ 2 φ ρ ἐνδυσάμενοι. So also (ic) Max-cont,: εἰ yap 52: si tamen latt Aug, Pel: st quidem Tert, Ambrst: εἰ ye CKLPN rel Clem, Did, Mac, Chr, [Euthal-ms Anteh,] Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] (Ec. εκδυσαμενοι (see notes) D'{and lat] spee Chr,(explaining it κἂν ἀποθώμεθα τὸ σῶμα) [ὑχύ,] Lert, Ambr Paulin, Primas Quest, exAvoauevar expoliati ἘΝ, (vestiti vulg with F-lat, expol. is written over the Greek in F.) against it, see below. 2. For also (our knowledge, that we possess such a building of God, even in case of our body being dissolved, is testified by the earnest desire which we have, to put on that new body without such dissolution taking place. See the similar argument in Rom. viii. 18, 19) in this (viz. σκήνει, as Beza, Meyer, Olsh., al. The rendering ἐν τούτῳ, ‘ where- fore, —some referring it tothe foregoing, — ‘propter hoc quod dictum est,’ Est., some to the following,—is inconsistent with ὄντες ἐν τῷ σκήνει, which is parallel with it, ver. 4. The stress is not necessarily on éy, ‘in this,’ as contrasted with ‘ out of this,’ as Meyer, who joins καί with ἐν τούτῳ; but see above) we groan (see Rom. viii. 23), longing (i.e. because we desire, the reason of στενάζομεν. ἐπι- ποθ., not ardently desire: the prep. does not intensify, but denotes the direction of the wish, as ἀνέμου μὴ mpose@ytos, Acts xxvii. 7) to put on over this (‘ superin- duere :’ viz. by being alive at the day of Christ, and not dissolved as in ver. 1:—see on ver. 4 below. The similitude is slightly changed: the house is now to be put on, as an outer garment, over the jleshly body) our dwelling-place (“ οἰκία est quiddam “magis absolutum,—oi«ynrf- ριον, domicilium, respicit incolam:’ Bengel. So Eur. Orest. 1113,—s@ Ἑλλὰς αὐτῇ σμικρὸν οἰκητήριον) from heaven (i.e. = é« θεοῦ ver. 1, but treated now as if hrought with the Lord at His coming, and put upon us who are alive and remaia then, ‘Itaque,’ says Bengel, ‘ hoc domicilium non est ceelum ipsum’): 3.] seeing that (et ye (see var. readd.) is used ‘ de re, que jure sumta creditur :’ εἴπερ, when ‘in incerto relinquitur, utrum jure an injuria sumatur.’ Herm. ad Viger., p. 834. So Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 17, ἀλλὰ yap, &., οἱ εἰς τὴν βασιλικὴν τέχνην παιδευόμενοι, ἣν δοκεῖς μοι σὺ νομίζειν εὐδαιμονίαν εἶναι, τί διαφέρουσι τῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης κακοπαθούντων, εἴ ye πεινήσουσι κ. διψήσουσι, K.T.A.,— ‘if they are to hunger and thirst, &. and for εἴπερ, Asch. Ag. 29 ἢ. εἴπερ Ἰλίου πόλις ἑάλωκεν, ὡς ὃ φρυκτὸς ἀγγέλλων πρέπει, if, that is, the city, &e.’) we shall really (καί, ‘in very truth ? so Soph. An- γυμνον D!}, — tig. 766, ἄμφω γὰρ αὐτὰ καὶ κατακτεῖναι νοεῖς; ‘dost thou intend verily to kill them both ?’ and sch. Sept. Theb. 810, ἐκεῖθι κῆλθον; ‘have they really come to that?’ See more examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 132) be found (shall prove to be) clothed (‘having put on clothing,’ viz. a body), not naked (without a body— “ ἐνδυσ., οὐ γυμν., aS γάλα, ov βρῶμα, 1 Cor. iii. 2 and often, ef. ver. 7.” Meyer. See Stanley’s note). ‘The verse asseris strongly, with a view to substantiate and explain ver. 2, the truth of the resurrec- tion or glorified body ; and, with Meyer, I see in it a reference to the deniers of the resurrection, whom the Apostle combated in 1 Cor. xv.: its sense being this: “ For Ido assert again, that we shall in that day prove to be clothed with a body, and not disembodied spirits.” Several other renderings have been given :—(1) ‘ Si nos iste dies deprehendet cum corpore, non exutos @ corpore,—si erimus inter mutan- dos, non inter mortuos,’ Grot.: Estius, Bengel, Conyb., al. To this there are three objections,—that εἴγε should be εἴπερ (the force of this objection is however much weakened by the amount of autho- rity which can be adduced for efrep),—that καί is not rendered at all,—and that ἐνδυ- σάμενοι, the aor. mid., should be ἐνδεδυ- μένοι, the perf. pass. (2) The same objec- tions apply to Billroth’s rendering, ‘ Jf we, having been once clothed (with the earthly body), shall not be found naked’ (without the body). (8) De Wette renders: ‘ seeing. that when we are also (really) clothed, we shall not be found naked :’ i.e. ‘setting down for certain as we do, that that hea- venly dwelling will also be a body.” To this Meyer rightly objects, that it is open to the difficulty of making ἔνδυσις and γυμνό- τῆς, and that in the very sense in which they are opposites, to co-exist ;—no cloth- ing but that of a body is thought of here, or else οὐ σώματος γυμνοί must have been expressed. (4) This latter objection ap- plies to the rendering of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Ecum., al., who take ἐνδυσά- μενοι = σῶμα ἄφθαρτον λαβόντες, and γυμνοί to mean γυμνοὶ δόξης. Similarly Anselm explains γυμνοί, ‘nudi Christo ;? LPR ab 9--Ὁ. οὐ " γυμνοὶ | εὑρεθησόμεθα. ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. 659 sae ,,\ δὶ e , “- 4 καὶ γὰρ οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ hs Plato, Cratyl. p. x , b 7 Ϊ / k ᾿ ᾿ se > θέ ] 5 277 « σκήνει Ὁ στενάζομεν | βαρούμενοι, * ἐφ w οὐ θέλομεν ' ἐκ- oh ae | = μ B ρ ᾽ φ γ1 μ ψυχὴ γυμνὴ τοῦ σώμα- δύσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ * ἐπενδύσασθαι, ἵνα ™ καταποθῇ τὸ "θνητὸν € XN A - ὑπὸ τῆς ζωῆς. TOS. see = 1 Cor. iv. 2 a 4 ΄ \ ΄ a \ ,9¢ A nw 7 reff. P rovTo θεός, ὁ δοὺς ἡμῖν τὸν ἃ ἀῤῥαβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος. 1 ch.i.8 reff. 12. see Matt. xix.9. Acts iil. 16. m = 1 Cor. xv. 54 (reff.), from Isa. xxv. 8. here only. p Acts xxiv. 15 reff. 18, 20 only. 1 Matt. xxvii. 28, 31 || Mk. Luke x. 30 only. Rom. v. Gen. xxxvii. 23. n Rom. vi. 12 reff. o Rom. ii. ‘ reff. constr., qch.i, 22. Eph. i. l4only. Gen. xxxvii. 17, 4, aft oxnve: ins τουτω DF ἃ [syrr copt goth eth Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt, ΤῊ] Orig- int,[: pref vulg spee Aug, | Tert, Ambrst : om BCKL[ P|X rel am arm Orig; Kus, (Chr, | Thdrtp1, Damase He Tert,. ep w) επειδη, with rel: txt BCDFKL P(o) δὲ ὁ Eus,. ins tovto F[-gr |(and G-lat spec) copt goth Tert, [ Ambrst ]. 5. κατεργαΐομενος DF latt(exc fuld) Iren-int, Ambrst. (καταργασ. C.) rec ins kat bef Sous (cf ch i. 22), with D?-3!-gr| KLN?* rel syr bef θεος δὲ} Orig,. βαρυνομενοι D'F Orig-ms, ΤῊ]. Steph (for αλλα Ne aft θνητὸν ins 6 goth Iren-gr, Chr, Thdrt Damase(kat 5:50us;Omg ο [as do 17(dous) Euthal-ms |) Ambrst : txt BCD! FPN! latt Syr copt eth arm Orig, Iren-int Aug, Pel Sedul Bede. DN m o 47. (P [def. }) Pelagius, Hunnius, and Baldwin, ‘ vacui fide? Erasm, Paraphr. ‘si tamen hoc exuti corpore non omnino nudi reperiamur, sed ex bone vite fiducia spe immortalitatis amicti :’ in part too Calvin,—restricting it however to the faithful only,—‘ if at least we, having put on Christ in this life, shall not be found naked then.’ Olshausen too takes οὐ γυμνοί as an expansion of ἐνδυσά- μενοι, ‘ provided that we shall be found clothed with the robe of righteousness, not denuded of it.’ Of all these we may say, that if the Apostle had meant by γυμνοί to hint at any other kind of γυμνότης than that which the similitude obviously implies, he would have certainly indicated it. (5) The rendering of «i ‘ utinam,’ ‘ uti- nam etiam induti, non nudi reperiamur!’ as Knatchbull and Homberg, need hardly be refuted. (6) Another class of render- ings arise from the reading éxduvoduevor in a few cursives, which in connexion with εἴπερ was evidently adopted in consequence of the views of expositors. It stood as a conditional sentence,—‘ provided, that is, that’ ..., and in the idea that it referred to the time after putting off the mortal body, ἐν was altered to ἐκ. For much of the reference to opinions in this note I am indebted to Meyer and De Wette. 4.) Confirmation and explanation of ver. 2. For also (a reason, why we ἐπιποθοῦ- μεν ἐπενδύσασθαι... .. ἃ5 in ver. 2) we who are in the tabernacle (before spoken of, i.e. of the body), groan, being burdened (not by troubles and sufferings, nor by the body itself, which would be directly opposite to the sense: but for the reason which follows), because (ἐφ᾽ @ as in ref. Rom.) we are not willing to divest our- selves (of it), but to put on (that other) over it, that our mortal part may (not, die, but) be swallowed up by life (ab- apaBwva sorbed in and transmuted by that glorious principle of life which our new clothing shall superinduce upon us). The feeling expressed in these verses was one most natural to those who, as the Apostles, re- garded the coming of the Lord as near, and conceived the possibility of their living to behold it. It was no terror of death as to its consequences—but a natural reluct- ance to undergo the mere act of death as such, when it was within possibility that this mortal body might be superseded by the immortal one, without it. 5. | This great end, the καταποθῆναι τὸ θνη- τὺν ὑπὸ τῆς ζωῆς, is justified as the ob- ject of the Apostle’s fervent wish, seeing that it is for this very end, that this may ultimately be accomplished, that God has wrought us (see below) and given us the pledge of the Spirit ;—But (and this my wish has reason: for) He who wrought us out (prepared us, by redemption, jus- tification, sanctification, which are the qualifications for glory) unto this very purpose (viz. that last mentioned—rd καταποθῆναι τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν ὑπὸ τ. ζωῆς, —not τὸ ἐπενδύσασθαι, a mere accident of that glorious absorption: see below) is God, who gave unto us (a sign that our preparation is of Him: ‘ guippe qui dede- rit’ .....) the earnest (reff. and note) of (gen. of apposition) the (Holy) Spirit. The Apostle in this verse, is no longer treating exclusively of his own wish for the more summary swallowing up of the mortal by the glorified, but is shewing that the end itself, which he individually, or in common with others then living, wishes accomplished in this particular form of ἐπενδύσασθαι, is, under whatever form brought about, that for which all the pre- paration, by grace, of Christians, i8 carried on, and to which the earnest of the Spirit Udv2 660 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. V. ἊΜ Gr θ Sears ® ΄ \ 5 ' “ s 2 ὃ a τ (-pp-) here 5 αρρουντες ουν TTAUVTOTE, KAL ELOOTES OTL “ ἐνθοήμουντέες bis. ch. Vil. 16. 5.1,3° te 5 tom se ) ITC ᾿ lov’ 1 αδιδ γί Heb. xi, 6 εν τῳ σώματι ἐκδημοῦμεν απο TOU κυριου διὰ πιιστεος Tok saa \ [ον ’ Ν y ᾿ 9 fe εἶ mein yap " περιπατοῦμεν, ov “dia ν᾽ εἴδους" ὃ." θαῤῥοῦμεν δὲ (xxxi. 11 δὲ ᾽ Ἂς κ᾿ > a ΓΤ τ , Ald. [-ρσ- καὶ Σ εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον 3 ἐκδημῆσαι εκ TOV σώματος καὶ AB compl.?) 9 ΝΣ 5 \ , ς 7 \ , ly. part. 5 9 | only, part. ὃ ἐγδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον. 3 διὸ Kal ¥ φιλοτιμούμεθα, ii, 5. 2 Pet. . iit. Baw. ix: 5. Winer, edn. 6, ὁ 45. 6. ὃ. s here (each 3ce) only +. see ch. viii. 19. tch. xii. 2,3. Heb. xiii. 3. u Rom. ii. 27 reff. v Rom, vi. 4. Acts xxi. 21 reff. w Luke iii. 22. ix. 29. John v. 37. 1 Thess. v. 22 only. Exod. xxiv. 17. x = Rom. xv. 26 reff. y Rom. xv. 20. 1 Thess. iv. 11 only t. 6. for evd., επιδημουντες D! ΕἸ επιλημ.]. Chr,. for απο, uo F. Cypr,] Tert, Lucif &c). 7. ins καὶ bef ov F vulg. 8. θαρρουντες (see ver 6) δὲ 17 aut autem G) 17: om b! ἃ ο 67? Orig,. @cov D}{-gr] 17 am arm Clem Ambrst. points forward. Meyer would limit this verse entirely to the wish expressed in the last: but he is certainly wrong: for it forms a note of transition to θαῤῥοῦντες civ πάντοτε in the next: see below. 6—8.] He returns to the confidence ex- pressed in ver. 1; that however this may be, whether this wish is to be fulfilled or not, he is prepared to accept the alterna- tive of being denuded of the body, seeing that it will bring with it a translation to the presence of the Lord. Being con- fident then (because it is God’s express purpose to bring us to glory, as in last verse) always (either under all trials : or, alwuys, whether this hope of ἐπενδύσασθαι, or the fear of the other alternative, be be- Sore us,—which latter I prefer), and know- ing (not as the ground of our confidence, as Calv., al., nor as an exception to it, ‘though we know, as Est., Olsh., al.,— but correlative with it, and the ground of the εὐδοκοῦμεν below) that while in our home in the body, we are absent from | our home in] the Lord (the similitude of the body as our οἰκία being still kept up: see similar sentiments, respecting our being wanderers and strangers from our heaven- ly home while dwelling .in the body, Phil. ili. 20; Heb. xi. 13; xiii 14),—for (proof of our ἐκδημία ἀπὸ τ. kup.) we Walk (the usual figurative sense,—‘go on our Chris- tian course,’ —not literal, as of pilgrims) by means of (not ‘in a state of,’ nor ‘through, as the element through which our life moves, Meyer; who is thereby necessitated to interpret the two preposi- tions differently, see below) faith, not by means of appearance (εἶδος cannot pos- sibly be subjective, as rendered in E. V. and by many Commentators; see reff.— i.e. ‘faith, not the actual appearance of heavenly things themselves, is the means whereby we hold on our way,’ a sure sign that we are chsent from those heavenly Orig, Tert, Ambrst. for €xd., αποδημουμεν D ἘΓαπολημ.ἢ for κυρ., θεου Ὁ Εἰ not F-lat] old-lat copt (not [vulg for δε, ουν F(ovy δε ergo for ex, aro m: om δὲ! a2, for κυρ.» things),—notwiths‘anding (I say) (he resumes the θαῤῥοῦντες, which was appa- rently at first intended to belong to evdo- koduev,—by the indicative, inserting the δέ because the last clause seemed some- thing like a dash to that confidence) we are confident, and are well pleased rather to go from (out of) [our home in] the body and come to our home with the Lord; i.e.-‘if (as in ver. 1) a dissolution of the body be imminent,—even that, though not according to our wish, does not destroy our confidence: for so sensible are we that dwelling in the body is a state of banish- ment from the Lord, that we prefer to ‘t even the alternative of dissolution, bring- ing us, as it will, into His presence.’ Meyer regards ἐκδημ. and ἐνδημ. as equiva- lent to the putting off of the mortal (but how ?) and putting on the immortal body at the coming of the Lord:—but surely by this the whole sense is destroyed. The Apostle, it seems to me, carcfully chooses the words, new to the context, ἐκδημεῖν and ἐνδημεῖν, to avoid such an inference, and to express, as he does in Phil. i. 23, then in the actual prospect of death, that τὸ ἀναλῦσαι is — equivalent to σὺν χριστῷ εἶναι : for here is no hint of the new house from heaven, only of a certain indefinite ἐνδημία πρὸς τὸν κύριον, which is all that is revealed to us, and it would seem was all that was revealed to him, of the disembodied state of the blessed. I may remark that Meyer, whose commentary on this Epistle is most able and thorough, has been misled in this passage by an endeavour to range the whole of it under the specific wish of vv. 2-- 4, 9, 10.] Wherefore (this being so,—our confidence, in event whether of death, or of life till the coming of the Lord, being such)— it is also (besides our confidence) cur aim, whether present (dwelling in the body) or absent (from the body at the time of His appearing), 6—11, ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 661 εἴτε ὃ ἐνδημοῦντες εἴτε ὅ ἐκδημοῦντες, “ εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ * Rom. xii.1, - ELVaL. 0479s yap ὅ᾿ πάντας ἡμᾶς ὃ φανερωθῆναι “ δεῖ 1 ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ 4' βήματος τοῦ ἃ χριστοῦ, ἵνα ! κομίσηται - a Rom. xi. 32 reff. b = (see note). Col. iii. 4. 1 Pet. v. 4. 1 John ii. 28. “ 8 A ὃ \ a) ΄ h \ ἃ ” y ἕκαστος ὅ Ταῦ «διῶ TOU owyaTtos, ἢ πρὸς, a ἔπραξεν, «εἶτα , 1%ghni.% » Ν v ’ ἀγαθὸν εἴτε κακόν. ΄ = ss , ie ff, 11 Kidores οὖν tov ἢ φόβον τοῦ J κυ- a λοις xviii.17. e Acts xii. 21 ρίου, ἀνθρώπους * πείθομεν, θεῷ δὲ ᾿Ἰπεφανερώμεθα" ἐλπίζω "νιν. al. Ps. xxxix.15. 2 Macc. viii. 33. xii. 41. Gal. ii. 14. 1: Mark iv. 322. John iii. 21 al. 10. ΝῚ has written ¢ bef κομισηται, but marked it for erasure. for κακὸν, φαυλον CR ἃ m 17 Orig,[-c,] Eus, προς a, D'F.—om τα δ. τ. σ. L. i ποῦ = Rom. xiii. 3. Rom. iii. 18. ch. vii. 1. @. χριστοῦ, Eph. v. 21. Col. ii. 25 g constr., Eph. Col. as above (f). = Luke j Actsix.3lonly. φ. θεοῦ, k = Acts xii. 20. Gal. i, 10. 1 Kings xxiv. 8. a for τα, ἅ, omg Ephr, Ath, Bas, Cyr[-p Euthal-ms] Damasc,: txt BDFKLP rel Clem, Orig,{-c, | Eus, Chr, [Bas, Antch,] Thdrtsepe Damasey,, [11. πειθωμεν P Gc-comm(altern). to be well pleasing to Him, i.e. ‘whether He find us évinu. or ἐκδημ., to meet with His approval in that day. ‘That this is the sense, the next verse seems to me to shew beyond question. For there he renders a reason for the expressions, and fixes the participles as belonging to the time of His coming. But this meaning has not, that I am aware, been seen by the Commentators, and in consequence, the verse has seemed to be beset with difficulties. The ordinary rendering is represented by Chrys., p. 508, τὸ... ζητού- μενον τοῦτό ἐστι, φησίν. ἄν τε ἐκεῖ ὦμεν, ἄν τε ἐνταῦθα, κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ ζῆν᾽--- the objection to which of course is, that when there with Him, there will be no striving to be εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ, the accept- ance having taken place. Nor is De Wette’s interpretation free from objection —‘ whether we live till His coming, or we die: because no sufficient account is given of the present participles. Of all renderings, Meyer’s is in this place the most absurd, misled as he is by his inter- pretation of ver.8. He would make ἐνδη- μοῦντες and ἐκδ. here merely literal, the similitude being dropped :—‘ whether at home, or on travel.’ But, all else aside, can he tell us where Paul’s home was, sub- sequently to Acts ix.? For this would be necessary, though he shrinks from any ‘geographifdhe Beftimmung.’ 10. ] For (explanation and fixing of εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι, as to when, and how testified) we all (and myself among the number) must be made manifest (not merely ‘appear’ = παραστῆναι [which is a most unfortunate rendering of the E. V., giving to the reader merely the idea of “ appear- ing before” as when summoned to a magistrate], but ‘appear in our true light,’ appear as we have never done before, as in reff., where the word is used of our Lord Himself: see also 1 Cor. iv. 5) before the judgment-seat (on βῆμα, see for πεφαν., φανερουμεθα K: φανερωμεθα m. | Stanley’s note) of Christ, that each may receive (the technical word for receiving wages) the things (done) through the body (as a medium or organ of action. Meyer cites τῶν ἡδονῶν ai διὰ τοῦ σώμά- Tos εἶσιν, Plato, Phedo, p. 65, and αἰσθή- σεις ai διὰ τοῦ σώματος, Pheedr. p. 250), according to the things which he did (in the body), whether (it were) good, or bad (singular, as abstract). I may observe that no more definite inference must be drawn from this verse as to the place which the saints of God shall hold in the general judgment, than it warrants ; viz. that they as well as others, shall be manifested and judged by Him (Matt. xxv. 19): when, or in company with whom, is not here so much as hinted. I cannot pass on, without directing the student to the passage on this verse in Chrysostom’s tenth Homily, p. 510 ff., as one of the grandest extant efforts of human eloquence. 11—138.] Having this φιλοτιμία, ---δοίηγχ a genuine fearer of God (see below)—he endeavours to make his plain dealing EVIDENT TO MEN, as it 15 EVIDENT TO GOD. He will give the Corinthians whereof to boast concern- ing him in reply to his boastful adver- saries: this his conduct being, whatever construction may be put on it, on behalf of God and them. 11.) Being then conscious of (‘no strangers to:’ so Homer freq., 6. g. ἀθεμίστια εἰδώς) the fear of the Lord (not, as Chrys. and most of the ancient Commentators = τὸ φοβερὸν τ. kup,,—so also Beza and Estius, ‘ tevrorem Domini,’ and E. V., ‘the terror of the Lord ;’—but as Vulg., ‘ timorem Domini,’ —this wholesome fear of Christ as our Judge: see reff. The expression is par- ticularly appropriate for one who had been suspected of double dealing and insin- | cerity: he was inwardly conscious of the principle of the fear of God guiding and leading him),—we persuade men (the stress on ἀνθρώπους, ‘it is MEN that we 662 ΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. V. ev \ , “ m ὃ ΄ . a ] »“" θ 19 > m 1 Cor. iii. 7, ce Kal ἐν ταῖς αὶ συνειδήσεσιν ὑμῶν 'πεφανερῶσθαι. οὐ ΒΟΟΕΝ &e. reff. y e , os ae ‘ Ra neh. {1.1 τοῦ. πτάλιν © ἑαυτοὺς "ὁ συνιστάνομεν ὑμῖν, ἀλλὰ Pi ἀφορμὴν «ἀετκᾳ " ; - -“ »" 4 h k | m n “ e / e “4 lj P (Fim. a P διδόντες ὑμῖν ᾿ καυχήματος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα " ἔχητε πρὸς ο 17. 47 only. olyod. \ 5) ͵΄ \ « a Ἐπί δ, le.) ποὺς ἐν ᾿προφώπῳ καυχωμένους, καὶ ‘ov ἱκαρδίᾳ. 15 ὃ εἴτε ap. ACEP ss \ es a ” a Ci. ς \ . vii. 8 v .ὖὸ w . 14 Rom.vi.8 γὰρ " ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ Yeite “σωφρονοῦμεν, υμῖν ἢ yap bove 3 ἴδ ch. xi. 12 (bis). Gal. ν. 13 only. P. Ezek. v.7 only. r Rom. iv. 2 reff. 5 see σχῶ τί γράψω, Acts xxv. 26. t 1 Thess. ii. 17. uconstr.,ch.i.6. 1 Cor. xii. 26, vy Paul, here only. = Mark iii. 21. Acts viii. 11. x. 45. xii. 16. Jer. ii. 12. w Rom. xil. 3 reff. 12. rec aft ov ins yap, with D°[-gr] KLP rel Damase Th! Cc: [et non exth:] om BCD'FR® [latt syrr copt goth arm Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt Ambrst Pel Bede. for 2nd vuiv, nuw B', nobis D-lat. vuwv BX 17 G-lat eth. for ov, μὴ εν ΒΝ m 17 [Euthal-ms]: οὐκ εν D'F: txt CD®KLP rel syr goth Chr Damase. attempt to persuade.’ Of what? Beza, Grot., al., of the truth of Christ’s reli- gion; win them to Christ, which however suits the rendering ‘terrorem Domini,’ better than the right one :—Chrys., Theo- doret, Theophyl., ‘of our own integrity,’ and so in the main, Estius, Bengel, Olsh., De Wette,—and Meyer, though he seems to object to it, for he connects the words with the φιλοτιμία of ver. 9:—Erasm., Luther, Wolf, Hammond, al., understand πείθομεν of the endeavour to make our- selves acceptable to men; Cornel.-a-La- pide, Le Clerc, al., ‘eundem hune ti- morem hominibus suademus.’ But from the context, it must have reference to our- selves; and I therefore agree with Chrys., al., as above [I may remind the English reader that there are few texts so much perverted as this one, owing to the ren- dering of the E. V. It is frequently understood and preached upon, as if it meant, “ Knowing how terrible God is, we persuade others to fear Him:” a meaning as far as possible trom the Apostle’s mind]), but to God we are already manifested (we have no need to persuade Him of our integrity, for He knows all things) ;—and I hope (am con- fident) that we have been manifested (Meyer remarks, that ἐλπίζω in the N. T. elsewhere has only the inf. aor.; here however the inf. perfect is logically neces- sary. He hopes, that the manifestation is complete. Cf. Acts xxvii. 13, δόξαντες τῆς προθέσεως κεκρατηκέναι, and Hom. 1]. ο. 110, ἤδη γὰρ νῦν ἔλπομ᾽ "Αρηΐ γε πῆμα τετύχθαι) in your consciences also. 12.] We are not recommending ourselves again to you (see ch. iii. 1), but [are] giving you an occasion for matter of boasting (καύχημα,---οῦ = καύχησις as De W.,—‘a source, whence matter of boasting may be derived’) on our behalf (of us, as your teachers, and to the up- holding of our ministry), that ye may have it (viz. καύχημα, matter of boasting) against those who boast in face (fair outward appearance), and not in heart (i.e. in those things which they exhibit, and are outwardly = κατὰ τὴν σάρκα, ch. xi. 18, not in matters which are iz their hearts: implying that their hearts are indifferent about the matters of which they boast). 13.] For (ye have good reason to boast of me as your teacher ; seeing that) wh: ther we have been mad (there is no need to soften the meaning to ‘inordinately praise ourselves, as Chrys., al.; or ‘act foolishly, as others; or ‘ultra modum agimus, as _ Bengel, Luther :--- μαίνῃ, Παῦλε, was once said, Acts xxvi. 24, and doubtless this charge was among the means taken to depreciate his influence at Corinth), it was to God (in God’s work and to His glory): [or] whether we be of sound mind, it is for you (on your behalf). ‘So that you have reason to glory in us either way; if you will ascribe to us madness, it is a holy madness, for God : if you maintain and are convinced of our sobriety, it is a soundness in your service.’ On the interpreta- tion of Chrys. above, he explains the last clause,—&y τε μέτριόν τι κ. ταπεινὸν (φθεγξώμεθαν, δι᾽ ὑμᾶς, ἵνα μάθητε ταπεινο- φρονεῖν. Hom. xi. p. 513. But he gives our interpretation also, as an alternative : μαίνεσθαί τις ἡμᾶς φησί; διὰ τὸν θεὸν τοιαῦτα μαινόμεθα. 14—19.| And his constraining motive is the love of Christ ; who died for all, , that all should live to Him; and accord- ingly the Apostle has no longer any mere knowledge or regards according to the Jlesh, seeing that all things are become new in Christ by means of the reconcilia- tion effected by God in Him, of which reconciliation Paul is the minister. 14.) For (reason of his devotion under all reports and circumstances, θεῷ and ὑμῖν, as in last verse) Christ’s love (not, Jove to Christ, as (Ες., Beza, al..—but Christ’s love to men, subjective, as most Commen- tators; as shewn in His Death, which is the greatest proof of love, see Rom. v.6—8. Meyer remarks that the gen. of the person after ἀγάπη is with Paul always 12—16. ΠΡΟΣ. KOPINOIOTS B. 663 ΄, a A , e “ - χ ἀγάπη τοῦ “ χριστοῦ ἡ συνέχει ἡμᾶς, 152 κρίναντας x = Rom. viii. “ any SO. Ger, ; ane ee ea eee 19 τοῦτο, OTL εἷς ὑπερ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, *apa “οἱ πάντες . 3" \ ΄, 5 7 vA e n ς ἀπέθανον. Kal ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἵνα ot ζῶντες / d ΄ A " “ , 4 d na "Ὁ \ Ψ - >’ θ ͵΄ μηκέτι ἃ ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν, ἀλλὰ “ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ " ἐγερθέντι. 8 1 σον. xv. 14. Gal. iii. 29. see Rom. vii. 3, 25. ἃ dat., Rom. vi. 2,10, 11. xiv. 7 al. xviii. 6 (Paul) reff. e 1 Cor. xv. 4, and passim. Eph. iii. y = Luke xii. (L.P., exc. Matt. iv. 24). Job xxxi. 23. 16 ὥ e a f > Ν fal “ "ὃ / Lo STE NMELS “ATO TOV νυν OQUOEVA OLOALLED - = Acts xv. 19. b ver. 10. c = Rom. vi. 8. Isa. xxvi. 19, f Acts 14. for χριστου, θεου CP 17. 39. 42-6. 120. 238 syr Chr Thdrt,(txtp1,) Thl-marg. 15. κριναντες Εἰ: -vovtas 17. rec ins et bef εἷς, with C!N? rel vulg(and F-lat) copt arm Ath-mss Chr, Cyr [-p Bas,-ms, Euthal-ms] Th] Aug,(elsw mss vary) Bede : om B(sic: see table) ΟΕ KLPN! ἃ 61 17. 47 syrr goth eth Ath-edd, Chr, Cyr,[-p Bas-edd, | Thdrt Damasc. for απεθανον, απεθανεν &}, aft 2nd απεθανεν ins χριστος F vulg(not am harl [fuld tol) arm Cypr, Ambrst]}. subjective,— Rom. v. 5, 8; viii. 35, 99 ; ch. viii. 24; xiii. 13; Eph. ii. 4; Phil. 1. 9 al. (but see his own note on 2 Thess. iii. 5, where he maintains the objective sense), whereas with John it is not always so, 1 John v. 3. Paul usually expresses love of, 1. 6. towards, by εἰς, Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. iii. 12) constraineth us (a better word could not be found: the idea of συνέχω is that of Sorcible limitation, either in a good or a bad sense,—of confining to one object, or within certain bounds, be that one - object a painful or glorious one,—those bounds the angustiz of distress, or the course of apostolic energy, as here. “ Con- straineth us,’ generally :—limits us to one great end, and prohibits our taking into consideration any others. ‘ Metaphora est in verbo constringendi: qua notatur, fieri nov. posse, quin, quisquis mirificum illum amorem quem testatus est nobis Christus morte sua, vere expendit et reputat, quasi ei alligatus, et arctissimo vinculo constric- tus, se in illius obsequium addicat.’ Calv. The varieties of interpretation, some as Meyer, urging more the sense cohibendz, others as Chrys., that exrcitandi, οὐκ adi- now ἡμᾶς ἡσυχάζειν, all in fact amount to one—that of the forcible compression of his energies to one line of action), 15.] [having judged this (i.e.] because we formed this judgment, viz. at our conversion :—learned to regard this as a settled truth) that One died on behalf of all (not only, for the benefit of all, as Meyer, —but instead of all, suffered death in the root and essence of our humanity, as the second Adam. This death on be- half of all men is the absolute objective fact: that all enter not into the benefit of that Death, is owing to the non-fulfilment of the subjective condition which follows), —therefore all cied (i. e. therefore, in the death of Christ, all, the all for whom He died, of πάντες, died too: i.e. see below, became planted in the likeness of His death,—died to sin and to self, that they might live to Him. This was true, objec- tively, but not subjectively till such death to sin and self is realized in each : see Rom. vi. 8 ff). . The other renderings,—‘ ought to die, as Thomas Aq., Grot., Estius, al., —‘were under sentence of death, as Chrys., Theodoret, Beza, al. ;—‘as good as died, Flatt ;—are shewn to be erroneous by carefully noticing the construction, with or without «i. The verd is common to both members of the sentence ; the correspon- dent emphatic words in the two members being (1) εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων, (2) πάντες : ‘(One on behalf of all) died, therefore (αἰ) died: if One died the death of (belonging to, due from) all, then all died (in and with Him).’ Meyer’s rendering of ὅτι because, can hardly be right as it would leave κρίναντας τοῦτο standing awkwardly alone. And He died for all, in order that they who live (in this life, see ἡμεῖς of ζῶντες, ch. iv. 11; = in sense, ‘as long as they are in this state,’ as De W.:—not, ‘those who live spiritually,’ as Beza, Flatt, which would altogether strike out the sense, for it is, that they may live spiritu- ally, &c.: nor, ‘superstites,’ they whom He left behind at His death, ζῶντες in contrast with Him who ἀπέθανεν, as Meyer ;—for, not to insist on the more general reference to all time, many to whom the Apostle was now writing were not born at the time of His Death) should no longer (now that His Death has taken place: or, as they did before they apprehended that Death as theirs,— but I prefer the former, see ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν below) live to themselves (with se/f as their great source and end of action, to please and to obey) but to Him that died and rose again for them (ὑπέρ, not mere- ly even as connected with ἐγερθέντι ‘for the benefit of, as Meyer again; but strictly ‘in the place 97: as the Death of Christ is our death, so His Resurrection is our resurrection). 16.] So that (ac- cordingly,—consistently with our judg- ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS Β. Υ. Ν , εὖ ’ ΄ ὃ κατὰ ὃ σάρκα" εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν © κατὰ ὃ σάρκα χριστόν, 1? σ΄ v h > A @STE €l TLS EV χρίστῳ, > H -“ a > [4 , ixawn ἱκτίσις" τὰ "ἀρχαῖα ᾿'᾿ παρῆλθεν, ἰδού, γένονεν ξ Rom.1.3 reff. > \ “- + ” , ΒῚ Cor-i.30 GAA νὺν οὐκ ETL γινώσκομεν. i Gal. vi. 15. k Acts xv. 7 reff. = Isa. xliii. 18. 1 = Matt. v. 18. xxiv. 35 al. see Acts xxvii. 9 reff. 16. rec aft εἰ ins δε, with C? D?-3[-gr] (K)LPN? rel syr (copt goth) Chr, [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damasc: καὶ bef εἰ F latt [Syr Orig-intajie Dind-int, Ambrst Augsepe]: txt B D'{-gr] ΝὲῚ 17 [arm] Orig, Eus, [Nys,]. (ΟἹ uncert.)—om καὶ K 115 copt goth [Cyr, Orig-int, ]. χριστον bef κατα σαρκα D eth Orig,(-intsepe) JePatic« aft γινώσκομεν ins kata σαρκα D! [and lat] F Jer,. (not vulg F-lat.) ment expressed ver. 15) we (in opposition to our adversaries, the false teachers: not general, of all Christians, as De W.,—but as yet spoken, as the emphatic position of ἡμεῖς sShews, of the Apostle himself (and his colleagues?)) from this time (since this great event, the Death of Christ) know no man according to (as he is in) the flesh (Meyer well remarks: “Since all are (ethically) dead, and each man is bound to live only to Christ, not to himself, our knowledge of others must be altogether independent of that which they are kara oapxa,— must not be regulated κατὰ σάρκα. And the connexion of ver. 16 with ver. 15 shews that we must not take κατὰ σάρκα asthe subjective rule of οἴδαμεν, ---- so that the explanation would be, ‘ accord- ing to mere human knowledge,’ ‘apart from the enlightening of the Holy Spirit,’ ef. ch. i. 17; 1 Cor. i. 26,—but as the objective rule, cf. ch. xi. 18 ; John viii. 15 ; Phil. 111. 4,—so that εἰδέναι τινὰ κατὰ σάρκα = ‘to know any one according to his mere human individuality, —‘to know him as men have judged him by what he is in the flesh,’ not by what he is κατὰ πνεῦμα, as a Christian, as καινὴ κτίσις, ver. 17. He who knows no man κατὰ σάρκα has, e.g. in the case of the Jew, entirely lost sight of his Jewish origin,— in that of the rich man, of his riches,— in that of the learned, of his learning, — in that of the slave, of his servitude, &c., cf. Gal. iii. 28”): if even we have (εἰ καί concedes what follows: πόλιν μέν, εἰ καὶ μὴ βλέπεις, φρονεῖς δ᾽ ὅμως, οἵᾳ νόσῳ ξύνεστι, Soph. Ed. Tyr. 302,—but also, as distinguished from καὶ εἰ, intro- duces no climax, and distributes the force of the καί over the whole concessive clause, whereas in καὶ εἰ it is confined to the con- ditional particle ei,—see Hartung, Parti- kellehre, i. 139) known Christ according to the flesh, now however we know Him (thus) nolonger. The fact alluded to in the concessive clause, is, not any personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus while He was on earth, but that view of Him which Paul took before his conversion, when he knew Him only according to His outward ap- parent standing in this world, on/y as Jesus of Nazareth. χριστόν is not = τὸν χρισ- τόν, ‘the Christ,’ but merely as a proper naive designating Him whom he now knew as Christ. Observe, the stress is not on χριστόν, α. 4. ‘If we have known even Christ after the flesh,’ &e., as usually un- derstood ;—the position of xp. forbids this, which would require εἰ καὶ χριστὸν ἐγν. k. odp.,—but on ἐγνώκαμεν, as belonging to the past, contrasted with our present know- ledge. Observe likewise, that the position of κατὰ σάρκα, as above also, forbids its being taken as the subjective qualification of ἐγνώκαμεν, as = εἰ καὶ κατὰ σάρκα ἐγν. χρ., or εἰ kK. ἔγν. Xp. K. σάρκ., and fixes it as belonging to χριστόν,--- Christ according to the flesh.’ St. Paul now, since his conversion, knew Him no longer as thus shewn, but as ὁρισθέντα υἱὸν θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, κατὰ πνεῆμα ἁγιωσύνης. At that time, εὐδόκησεν 6 ἀφορίσας ue... - ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, Gal. i. 15, 16. See by all means Stanley’s re- marks, on the absence of all local and personal recollections of our Lord’s life, in the apostolic age. 17.) So that (additional inference from what has gone before: hardly as Meyer, from ver. 16 only: the death of ver. 15, as well as the new knowledge of ver. 16, going to make up the καινὴ κτίσι5) if any man is in Christ (far better than ‘whoever is in Christ.’ See note on Phil. iv. 8. ‘In Christ, i.e. in union with Him: Christ being ‘the element in which by faith we live and move,’ as Meyer), he is a new creature (κτίσις, ‘creation,’—the act, im- plying here the result of the act. See ref. and Col. iii. 10, 11; Eph. ii. 10; iv. 23. ‘ He has received,’ ‘passed into,’ ‘a new life,” John iii. 3): the old things (of his former life—‘all the old selfish and im- pure motives, views, and prejudices,’—De Wette) have passed away (there does not appear to be any allusion, as in Chrys., Theophyl., to the passing away of Judaism, but only to the new birth, the antiqua- tion of the former unconverted state, with all that belonged to it); behold (a remi- niscence of Isa. xliii. 18, 19—pH μνη- μονεύετε τὰ πρῶτα, καὶ Ta ἀρχαῖα pw συλλογίζεσθε: ἰδοὺ, ἐγὼ ποιῷ καινά), they have become new (see var. readd.). The arrangement of the sentence followed by BCDFK LPxrab cdefg hkimn 0 17, 47 17—20. ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS B. 665 καινά. 18 τὰ dé™ πάντα πὶ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ " καταλλάξαν- m1 Cor. ai. 12 ren. a el \ a / a \ Tos ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ χριστοῦ Kai δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν 5 Rom.y.10 ~ nw “ Ν iy Acts . 24 ο διακονίαν τῆς P καταλλαγῆς, 19 «ὡς «ὅτι θεὸς ἣν * ἐν “ τε: fe p here bis. Rom. .1] “ ’ n / e A \ 8 / χριστῷ κόσμον "KaTaddAdoowY ἑαυτῷ, μὴ * λογιζόμενος xi. 15 only. a. ix. 5. = 7, Ἂν \ , > hey αὐτοῖς τὰ ἱπαραπτώματα αὐτῶν, καὶ " θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν Psat.’ 20 \ y / lal A 90 ς + nw => only. Tov ‘Xoyov τῆς Ρ καταλλαγῆς. ὑπὲρ χριστοῦ οὖν 4 - here (ch.xi. r 1 Cor. xv. 22 reff. : 2 Thess. s = Rom. ii. 26. iv. 4, 8 al. fr. u Ps. civ. 27. (Amos vy. 7.) ii. 2) only. Num. xviii. 27. v Acts xili. 26 reff. t Rom. iv. 25 reff. 17. rec aft kava ins τὰ παντα, with D?-3[-gr] KLP rel syr goth eth-pl [arm-mss] Orig, Constt,; Did, Chr, Damasce Tert,: bet xawa bd fk ο 17. 46. 67? vulg-ed (Syr) Ath,!-ed,] Dial, Meth, Cyr{-p, Ephr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Procl, Orig-int, [Ambr, ] Ambrst Jer Salv: om BCD‘FX latt copt eth-rom arm(1805) Clem, Ath-ms, Cyr[-p, Ambr,] Hil, Aug, Promiss. 18. om Ist του DIF. rec ins τἡσου bef χριστου, with D3[-gr} KL rel Thdrt Damasc: om BCD!FPX 17 latt syrr copt goth eth arm Chr, [Kuthal-ms] Hil Aibrst Aug). 19. ins o bef θεος FK b! o Chr, Thdrt. καταλασσωνί(ϑιο) Ne fh! k. add ev D'{corrd eadem manu]. for Aoy., αστιζομενος F. [εαυτοις (but corrd) D}.] om 2nd εν Καὶ f ἢ 1! n 47. ins (Tov) evayyeAtov bef τὸν Aoyov D! Εἰ ποῦ F-lat]: adnuntiationem D-lat, evangeliz G-lat(and so over the greek in F).—om tov F, 20. for ὑπερ xp. ουν, ov ὑπερ χριστου D! ΕἾ -οΥ]}; pro quo Christo D-lat; quod pro the Vulg., al., ‘Si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura, vetcra transierunt,’ is in- admissible, because the second member would be a mere reassertion of the first. 18.] And all things (in this new creation : he passes to a more general view of the effects of the death of Christ—viz. our reconciliation to God) are from God (as their source), who reconciled us (all men, from next verse, where κόσμον is parallel with it) to Himself by means of Christ (as an atonement, an expiatory sacrifice, ver. 21, for sin which made us ἐχθροὶ θεοῦ, see Rom. v. 10), and gave (committed) to us (Apostles, not mankind in general; for had it been so,—in the next verse, which is parallel, ἐν αὐτοῖς, not ἐν ἡμῖν, must have stood, after αὐτοῖς and αὐτῶν just preceding) the ministration of the reconciliation (the duty of ministering in that office, whose peculiar work it is to proclaim this reconciliation : so διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης“, ch. 111. 9. Observe, that the reconciliation spoken of in this and the next verse, is that of God to us, absolutely and objectively, through His Son: that whereby He can complacently behold and endure a sinful world, and receive all who come to Him by Christ. This, the subjec- tive reconciliation,—of men to God,—fol- lows as a matter of exhortation, ver. 20), 19.] how that (the ὡς imports that the proposition following it, introduced by ὅτι, is matter of indirect reference. So Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 14, εἰπὼν τῷ Φάρακι ὡς ὅτι Oxvoin μὴ 6 Τισσαφ. κ-τ.λ., and argum. Isocr. Busir. p. 520 (cited by Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 9), κατηγόρουν αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὅτι καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρει) God in Christ was re- c lal ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα * δίκαιοσύνη " θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. VI. 10 συνερ- b Mark xvi. 206. Rom. viii. 28. only +. 1 Mace. xii. 1. Esdr. vii. 2 only. (~yos, 1 Cor. iii. 9.) 21 τὸν 1 Cor. xvi. 16. James ii. 22 δεόμενοι D'(and lat) F[-gr] Chr-ms Hil, Ambrst(not [Orig-int, Jer, | Augsepe) 3 orantes aut obsecrantes G-lat. F-lat] syr-mg goth, reconciliart G-lat [ Hil, Ambrst Augsspe |. 21. rec aft τὸν ins yap (see note), with D3, -gr καταλλαγήναι D'(and lat) ΕἸ ποῦ om Tw F, | KUPRS rel syrr goth eth arm Chr, Euther, Thdrt; Damase: om BCD!FR! 17 latt copt Orig, Eus, Ath, [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms] ‘{hdrt, Did{-int,] Hil, Ambrst Aug Pel Alcim. rec ytywueba: txt BCDKPR® rel Orig, Eus,[-ms, Cyr-p,] Chr, Thdrtsepe Damase Thl Ce, [yevou. 1 Euthal-ms, ] evauia ΕΝ Thdrt,: om θεου 46. 114 Thdrt,. behalf then (i. 6. in pursuance of the impo- sition on us of the λόγος τῆς κατ.) We are ambassadors, as if God were exhorting by us: we beseech (‘ you,’ but not uttered as an integral part of the present text, not a request now made and urged, as Rom. xii. 1; he is describing the embassage; we are ambassadors, and in our embassage it is our work to beseech—‘ Be ye,’ ἄς.) on Christ’s behalf, Be reconciled to God :— καταλλὰ. strictly passive: ‘God was the RECONCILER —let this reconciliation have effect on you—enter into it by faith.’ Our E. V., by inserting the word ‘ye,’ has given a false impression, making it appear as if there were an emphasis on it, correspond- ing to God being reconciled to us, as if it had been καταλλάγητε καὶ ὑμεῖς τῷ θεῷ .--- whereas it is the simple being reconciled in that reconciliation in which God was, in Christ, the Reconciler. 21.] States the great fact on which the exhortation to be reconciled is grounded :—viz. the un- speakable gift of God, to bring about the reconciliation. It is introduced without a ydp (which has been supplied), as still forming part of the λόγος τῆς καταλλαγῆς. Him who knew not sin (τὸν οὐ γνόντα would merely assert the fact, that up to the time of ἐποίησεν, He was ignorant of sin. But μή with a participle, as has been ob- served since the doctrine of the particles has been more accurately studied, always denies subjectively, i.e. in reference to the view of some person who is the subject, or to the hypothesis of some person who is the direct or indirect utterer of the assertion. Cf. note on ch. iv.18. | With what refer- ence then is the particle here used ? Fritz. (in Meyer) thinks, to the Christian’s neces- sary idea of Christ, “quem talem virum mente concipimus, qui sceleris notitiam non habuerit :᾿ Meyer, and Winer, edn. 6. § 55. 5. B, to God’s judgment of Him. I much prefir to either regarding it as θεου bef δικαιοσυνη KP ἃ 99. 109. 219 Kus, (txt,) Sev Chir subjective with reference to Christ Him- se/f, Who said, John viii. 46, tis ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει me περὶ ἁμαρτίας; He was thus 6 μὴ γνοὺς ἁμαρτίαν (see Hartung, Parti- keilehre, 11. 181, who gives among other examples, one very similar, from Thucyd, i. 118, ἡσύχαζόν τε τὸ πλέον τοῦ χρόνοι", ὄντες καὶ πρὸ τοῦ μὴ ταχεῖς ἰέναι ἐς τοὺς πολέμου»), --- knew not,’ i.e. by contact, by personal experience, ‘sin.’ See, for the sense, 1 Pet. ii. 22; Heb. vii. 26), on our behalf (or, instead of us: 1 prefer here the former, because the purpose of the verse is to set forth how great things God has done for us :—the other, though true, does not seem so applicable. The words ὑπὲρ ju. are emphatic) He made (to be) sin (not, ‘a sin-offering, as Augustine, Ambros., (cum., Erasm., Hammond, Wolf, al., for the word seems never to have the meaning, even in the LXX (see however the remarkable read- ing of the Codex A at Lev. vi. 25); and if it had, the former sense of the same word in this same sentence would preclude it here: nor = ἁμαρτωλός, as Meyer, al.: but, as De Wette, al., SrN, abstract, as opposed to RIGHTEOUSNESS which follows ; compare κατάρα, Gal. iii. 13. He, on the Cross, was the Represen- tative of Sin,—of the sin of the world), that we might become (the present, γινώμ. as in rec., would signify, as Stallbaum, Crito, p. 43 (Meyer)—‘ id quod propositum fuerit, nondum perfectum et transactum esse, sed adhuc durare.’ The aor., which is supported by all the Mss., also yields the best sense, as joining the whole justification of all God’s people, as one act accomplished, with the Sacrifice of Christ) the righteousness of God (see above: re- presentatives of the Righteousness of God, endued with it and viewed as in it, and examples of it) in Him (in union with Him, | and by virtue of our standing in Him). BCDFK. LPR ab cdefg hklwna ο 17. 47 VI. J—3. γοῦντες δὲ Kal “ παρακαλοῦμεν, μὴ ἃ εἰς τοῦ θεοῦ δέξασθαι ὑμᾶς 2 (λέγει yap ΚΚαιρῷ ' δεκτῷ ὅ ἐπ- ἠκουσά σου, καὶ ἐν ἃ ἡμέρᾳ σωτηρίας ἱ ἐβοήθησά σοι. νῦν καιρὸς Ἰεὐπρόςδεκτος, ἰδοὺ νῦν " ἡμέρα σωτηρίας") ὃ μηδεμίαν * ἐν ὃ μηδενὶ | διδόντες τὶ προςκοπήν, ἵνα μὴ 35. Phil. iv. 18 only. i Acts xvi. 9 reff. 11 Cor. ix. 12. Rom. ix. 32.) j Rom. xv. 16 reff. Cuap. VI. 1. παρακαλουντες D}[and lat] ΕἾ ποὺ F-lat] goth. ἡμᾶς CR!(txt δὲ -οοΥ 1.5) 4. 17. 89 eth. 2. καιρω yap λεγει D'(and lat) F(not F-lat) [goth] Sedul. for σοι, gov F(not G). supplied by N-corr?.) Cuap. VI. 1—10.] He further describes his apostolic embassage, as one of earnest exhortation not to receive the grace of God in vain (vv. 1, 2), and of approving him- self, by many characteristics and under various circumstances, as the minister of God (vv. 3—10). 1.1] συνεργοῦντες, viz. τῷ θεῷ, Whose representatives they were, and Whose grace they recommended. This is implied not only in what went before, but in the τοῦ θεοῦ of our verse itself. Meyer makes it τῷ χριστῷ, refer- ring it to the ὑπὲρ xp. above: Chrys., Theo- doret, Bengel, Olsh,, al., ὑμῖν, which cer- tainly would have been expressed, and does not suit the sense, nor Paul’s habit of speaking of the ministry, see 1 Cor. iii. 9. Flatt and Emmerling would make the σύν imply, working with our exhortations, aid- ing them by our example: which sense, though occasionally belonging to σύν and πρός in composition, could hardly have place here without some plainer indication in what went before, of that to which the preposition refers,—and would not suit the καί, which severs ouvepy. from παρακαλ. The δέ is one of transition, introducing a new feature. Moreover, while working with God, we also exhort, that you (when preaching to you,—or others, when preaching to others: he still is describing his practice in his ministry. not using a direct exhortation to the Corinthians) re- ceive not (‘recipiatis ;—not ‘ receperitis,’ ‘that ye will not have received,’ i. 6. “ will not by apostasy shew that ye have received . . . as Erasm., al., and De Wette. This mistake arises mainly from regarding the words as directly addiessed to the Corin- thians instead of a description of his apos- tolie practice) the grace of God (i.e. the re- conciliation above spoken of) to no purpose (i.e. unaccompanied by sanctification of life; so Chrys., iva . . μὴ νομίσωσιν ὅτι τοῦ- τό ἐστι καταλλαγὴ μόνον, τὸ πιστεῦσαι τῷ καλοῦντι, ἐπάγει ταῦτα, τὴν περὶ τὸν βίον σπουδὴν ἀπαιτῶν. Hom. xii. p. 521.) 2.1 Ground of the exhortation: viz. the IPO KOPINOIOTS B. g here only I. c. 667 de κενὸν τὴν a Ly c Rom. xii. 1 ) χ ρ 4 reff. ; d Gal. ii. 2. Phil. ii. 16 bis. 1 Thess. > \ ἰδοὺ iii. 5 only Isa. Ixv. 23. e 1 Cor. xv. 10 reff. flsa xlix. 8. Luke iv. 19, 24. Acts x. h = 1 Cor. i. # reff. Amos i. 4. see ver. 4. Ps. xix. 1: Kehs wit. 9 Phil: 7. 28: m here only+. διδόναι ἀφορμὰς προςκοπῆς, Polyb. xxvii. 6.10. (-Koupa, om vuas Ὁ}: (κτω of δεκτω are for evmposdextos, δεκτος ΚΕ, importance of the present time as the day of acceptance,—shewn by a Scripture cita- tion. For he (God, with whom we συνερ- γοῦμεν and whose grace we recommend) saith, ‘In an accepted time (Heb. ᾿Ξ nya, ‘in a season of grace’) I heard thee, and in the day of salvation I helped thee:’ be- hold (inserted for solemnity—to mark the importance of what follows), Now is the favourably accepted time (cimpdsdexros, a far stronger term than δεκτός, q. d. the very time of most favourable acceptance, said from the fulness of his feeling of the greatness of God’s grace),—behold, now is the dayof salvation. 6 yap ἐν τοιούτῳ καιρῷ ἀγωνιζόμενος, ἐν ᾧ τοσαύτη κέχυται δωρεά, ἐν ᾧ τοσαύτη χάρις, εὐκόλως ἐπιτεύ- ξεται τῶν βραβείων. Chrys. Ρ. 522. The prophecy is one directly of the Lord Jesus, as the restorer and gatherer of his people; and the time of acceptance is the interval of the offer of the covenant to men, con- ceded to Him by the Father. 3—10. | And this doing, he approves himself as the minister of God by various churac- teristics, and under manifold circum- stances in life. 9,1 διδόντες, resumed from συνεργοῦντες, ver. 1: ver. 2 being parenthetic. It, and all the following participles, vv. 9, 10, qualify παρακαλοῦμεν, shewing the pains and caution used by him to enforce this exhortation by his example as well as his precept. So Grot.: ‘ostendit enim, quam serio moneat, qui, ut aliquid proficiat, nullis terreatur incommodis, nulla non commoda negligat.? But evidently, before the list is exhausted, he passes be- yond the mere confirmation of his preach- ing, and is speaking generally of the cha- racteristics of the Christian ministry. ἐν μηδενί, in nothing, compare ἐν παντί, below : not, ‘in no man’s estimation,’ as Luther. μηδεμ.,-- μηδενί, are not = οὐδεμ. - οὐδενί, but, see on ch. v. 21, subjectively said—we exhort, being such as give, &c.: so 1 Cor. x. 33, ἐγὼ πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω, μὴ (ntay κιτ.λ. προςκοπή -- σκάν- δαλον, or mpéskouua, Rom. xiv. 13. 008 ἢ a A e ο ὃ / n ch, viii, 20 μωμηθῃ ἢ ° Olaxovia, only. Prov. Wisd. x. 14 only. ἔ-μος, 2 Pet. ii. 13.) oS rea ic dds xx. 24 (reff.). Rom. xi. 19 τ. ψέσιν, ἐν ἐν ὃν φυλακαῖς, ἐν ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 4 ἀλλ᾽ \ fal ΄ wn “Ὁ ’ , 4 ἑαυτοὺς ὡς θεοῦ διάκονοι, ἐν ὑπομονῇ πολλῇ, ἐν ὃ θλι- , 2 t ἀνάγκαις, ἐν Vt. ’ \ , Pey Pqravtt 9 cuvioTtavTes ὁ στενοχωρίαις, ὃ ἐν “Y πληγαῖς, , " , > 9 “ ἀκαταστασίαις, ἐν δ κόποις, ἐν ¥* aypu- p “ΞΘ. αν. Β : 25, ya / 6 gy Ὁ ἡ ) 2 ¢ ‘ σ sy ἃ ea τὶ TTVLALS, EV VNUTTELALS, εν QAyvoT?)Tt, εν γνω ει, EV μα- 4 ch. iii. 1. iv. - 2. Sule Waly 11. πα. Bee r Rom. ii. 7 reff. s Rom. ii. 9 (reff.). t — 1 Cor. vii. 26 reff. u Acts xvi. 23. v ch. xi. 23. w 1 Cor. xiv. 33 reff. x as above (v). 1 Cor. iii. 8. xv. 58 al. Gen. xxxi. 42. y ch. xi. 27. z as above (y) only +. 2 Macc. ii. 26. (-mvetv, Eph. vi. 18.) a as above (y) (1 Cor. vii. 5 v. r.) only in Paul. {Matt. xvii. 21 || Mk.) Luke ii. 37. Acts xiv. 23. xxvii. 9 only. 2 Kings xii. 16. bch. xi. 3 only τ. (-v0s, ch. vii. 11.) ¢ =, 1 Cor. i. 5. xii. 8 al. d Rom. ii. 4 (reff.), 3. uwOy(sic) BI f: μωμωθη 1)}. aft ἢ διακονία ins nuwy DF ἃ 66?. 73 latt syrr sah [goth] Chr, Thdrt [Antch,(pref)] ΤῊ] Gic-comm Ainbrst Aug, Pell, ὑμῶν eth). 4. rec συνιστωντες, with DIKL 3 rel Chr, txt CD! FR} 17 Clem, Cyr; [ Kuthal-ms]. διακονους D![-gr] vulg [F-lat Ambrst Aug, ] : f: συνιστανοντες BP 31. 73 Damase, : μωμηθῇ} μωμᾶσθαι, ‘to reproach’ (see Winer, edn. 6, § 38. 7. a, and Moulton’s note), is one of those deponent verbs which have an aorist passive: so d:a- λέγεσθαι, βούλεσθαι, δύνασθαι, σπλαγ- χνίζεσθαι, &e, The διακονία, the office itself, would be reproached, if cause of offence were found in the character of its bearers. 4.) Meyer well remarks the position of συνιστ. ἑαυτούς. When the words signified ‘to recommend our- selves, in a bad sense, ch. iii. 1, v. 12, —éavt. preceded the verb: but here and ch. iv. 2, where used in a good sense, and without any stress on ἑαυτούς, it follows the verb. ‘This is only one of continually occurring instances of the importance of the collocation of words with regard to the emphasis. διάκονοι not διακόνους : recommending ourselves, as ministers of God should do. The ambiguity of the Εἰ. V. might have been avoided by a different arrangement of words: ‘in all things, as the ministers of God, ap- proving ourselves.’ The following datives are a specification of παντί; but not all of the same sort: some signify instruments by which, some, situations in which, some both these. Bengel re- marks: “Insignis gradatio. Sequuntur ter tria patienda (i.e. from θλίψεσιν to vnoreias), quibus patientia (ὑπομονή) exercetur ; pressure,— plage, —labores. Primus ternarius continet genera, se- cundus, species adversorum: tertia spon- tanea” (but qu?: see below). So that the ὑπομονὴ are: belongs to vv. 4, 5, and ver. 6 goes on to other points. otevox.| See ch. iv. 8, note. 5.] On πληγ.; see reff. φυλακ.} At Philippi only as yet, as far as we know from the narrative of the Acts; —but there must have been many other occasions, see ch. xi. 23. He may have been imprisoned at Antioch in Pisidia, Thdrt [Antch, | Damasep..: συνιστοντες ministros ἀν -i G-lat. Acts xiii. 50, and at Lystra, xiv. 19, and at Corinth, xviii. 12, 14: and we cannot tell what may have befallen him during his journeys, Acts xv. 41; xvi. 6; xviii. 23. ἐν dkataot.] in tumults, see Acts xill. 50; xiv. 5,19; xvi. 22; xvii. 53 xviii. 12, and above all, xix. 28 -- 41, The sense given by Chrys. (p. 522), al., τὸ μηδαμοῦ δύνασθαι στῆναι ἐλαυνόμενον, is _philo- logically allowable, cf. Demosth. 383. 7, ἀκατάστατον ὥςπερ ev θαλάττῃ πνεῦμα, and James i. 8, and Polyb. xxxi. 18. 6, ὑποδεικνύων αὐτοῖς THY ἀκαταστασίαν τῆς βασιλείας,-- θαῦ not found in N. T. ἐν κόποις) usually, and here, signifies ‘labour in the Lord, for his sake, see reff. So also κοπιάω, Rom. xvi. 6, 12 (bis), and reff. Chrys., al., interpret it of his manual work, 1 Cor. iv. 12; and ἀστατοῦμεν and κοπιῶμεν occurring there together certainly gives some semblance to the view: but see ch. xi. 23, where this can hardly be; it is most probable that the weariness of his excessive apos- toliec labour was in his mind. ἀγρυπνίαις] Chrys. says, Ὁ. 529, τὰς νύκτας ἐν αἷς ἐδίδασκεν, ἢ ὅτι καὶ ἐν αὐταῖς εἰργά- ζτο. But I would rather believe the aypurvia to have been watchings through anxiety for the churches. ἐννηστείαις] This is generally, and by De W. against. Meyer, taken to refer to involuntary hun- ger and thirst. But, as the latter remarks, the word does not appear to be ever so used ; and in ch. xi. 27, Paul himself dis- tinguishes ἐν νηστείαις from ἐν λιμῷ kK. δίψει. The meaning of fastings must therefore be retained. So Chrys., Theo- doret, and Calvin. 6.1 The nine pre- ceding datives (see on ver. 4) have ex- panded ὑπομονῇ. We now resume the main catalogue, with ἐν ἁγνότητι, in purity: which is variously explained: ot bodily chastity, Grot.:—of unselfishness, Theodoret, and Chrys., as an alternative (ἢ BCDFK LPNab edetg hkimn ο 17. 47 4---, κροθυμίᾳ, ἐν ἃ χρηστότητι, © ἀνυποκρίτῳ, 7 ἐν fro pity, 7 ἐν troy on τῶν ὅπλων τῆς ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS Β. Γἀληθείας, ἐν ὃ δυνάμει 8 θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνης 669 ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, ἐν ἀγάπῃ pao xii. 9 f Eph i. 13. 2 Tim. ii. 15, James i. 18. TOV i δεξιῶν Kal 5 pee i. 18 ™ ἀριστερῶν, ὃ διὰ 1 δόξης καὶ τ ἀτιμίας, dia ® δυςφημίας h = ch. x. ἅ, Kab “εὐφημίας, ὡς Ῥ πλάνοι καὶ “ ἀληθεῖς, 9 ὡς τ ἀγνοού- iii. 3. i (see note.) Matt. vi.3. Mark x. 37. k N. T. as above (i) only. Gen. xiv. ἰδ. n here only+. 1 Mace. vii. 38. Ὁ here only+. Ps. xcix. 2 Symm. (bis) only, Job xix, 4. r1 Cor, xiv. 38. Gal. i, 22. Jer. xxiii. 32 only. 2 Pet. ii, 12 al. σωφροσύνην... ἢ τὴν ἐν ἅπασι καθαρότητα, ἢ τὸ ἀδωροδόκητον, ἢ καὶ τὸ δωρεὰν τὸ εὐαγγ. κηρύττειν. ib.):—I prefer the second of Chrys.’s meanings, general purity of character, εἰλικρίνεια, ---- unblamableness of life, and singleness of purpose. ἐν γνώσει} knowledge of the Gospel, in ἃ high and singular degree; see 1 Cor. ii. 6 ff. So Chrys.: σοφίᾳ τῇ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δεδομένῃ. χρηστότητι) kind- ness: a kind and considerate demeanour. ἐν wv. ἁγίῳ] in the Holy Spirit, as the Power by Whom ali these motives are wrought. The omission of the article, aft. ἐν, constitutes no objection to this ren- dering, as Bp. Middleton (in loc.) sup- poses: cf. διὰ mv. ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡμῖν, Rom. v. 5,—and the very same words as these, 1 Thess. 1. 5,—in both which places the meaning is undoubted; sieither of which, however, is noticed by Middleton. The words do not appear to hold any logi- cal place in the list, any more’than ἐν δυν. θεοῦ below. 7. ἐν Ady. ἀληθ.] is taken by De W., Meyer, al., as subjective,—‘ in speaking, or teaching truth’—‘in dis- course, the contents whereof were truth :’ but their objection against the sense in the word of truth, = ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀλη- θείας, as it is expressed Col. i. 5, is not valid, on account (1) of the government by a preposition, which would make the insertion of the article optional,—(2) of the whole catalogue being anarthrous, which would cause the article to be omitted for uniformity’s sake. ἐν Suv. θεοῦ] viz. the Power spoken of ch. iv. 7,— the power manifested in every part of our apostolic working,—not merely in miracles. διὰ τ. ὅπλ. τ. Six. | By means of (ἐν is changed for διά, first ap- parently on account of τὰ ὅπλα, marking them more distinctly as instruments,—and then continued) the weapons of righte- ousness (belonging to,—or as Meyer, fur- mished by, the righteousness which is of faith. That panoply, part of which only in the more particular specification of Eph. vi. 13—17, viz. the θῶραξ, is allotted to δικαιοσύνη,---ἰθ here all assigned to it. Some of the ancient Commentators,— John xviii. 3 (Rom. vi. 13 bis. xili. 12) only. Nah. Luke xxiii. 33 only. 1 Chron. xii. 2. 1 = John ν. 41, 44 al. m Rom. i. 26 reff. Esdr. i. 43 [40] Ald, (δυσσέβεια, AB &c.) only. (-μεῖν, 1 Cor. iy. 13.) (-sLos, Phil. iv. 8.) p Matt. xxvii. 63. 1Tim.iv.1. 2 John7 q subj., Mutt. xxii. 16. John iii. 33. Rom. iii. 4f. Chrys., @eum., al., and Grot., Estius, al., understand by ὅπλα, ‘ instruments,’ as in Rom. vi. 18, and interpret these instru- ments to be, situations and opportunities of life, whether prosperous, δεξιά, or ad- verse, ἀριστερά: but the other interpreta- tion is in better accordance with the Apostle’s habit of comparison,—see ch. x. 4; Eph. vi. 13 ff. ; 1 Thess. v. 8). τῶν Sef. x. ἀριστ.] which are on the right and left: i.e. encompassing and guarding the whole person. Grot., Bengel, and most recent Commentators, even De W. and Meyer, explain it, both right- handed,—i. e. of attack, the sword and spear,—and left-handed,—i. 6. of defence, the shield: but it seems to me that this would require τῶν δεξιῶν καὶ τῶν ἀριστε- ρῶν: whereas now, no article being in- serted before ἀριστ., it is implied that the panoply (τὰ ὅπλα) is on both sides (δεξιὰ k. ἀριστερά) of the person. On the in- terpretation prosperity and adversity, see above. 8.} Perhaps the instrumental signification of διά need not be strictly retained. ‘The preposition, once adopted, is kept for the sake of parallelism, though with various shades of neaning. I would understand it in διὰ 60é., &., as in διὰ πολλῶν δακρύων, as pointing out the medium through which. Thus understood, these two pairs in ver. 8 will form an easy transition from instrumental, through me- dial, to the passive characteristics which follow. ὡς πλάνοι] From speaking of repute, he passes to the character of the repute. In all these capacities and under all these representations or misre- presentations, we, as ministers of God, re- commend ourselves. Butin these following clauses a new point is perhaps brought out, viz. the difference of our real state from our reputed one. That this is the case with ὡς ἀποθν. κ. ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν and all following, is of course clear. But is it so with the two clauses preceding that one? Do they mean, ‘as deceivers, and yet true, as un- known, and yet well known,’ or,—‘ as de- ceivers. and as true men, as unknown, and as well known ?? Lown I am not clear on this point. The words καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν 670 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. VI. ἃ ’ ΄ , \ A Ὁ Acts xxiii. 28 EVOL Kal " ἐπιγινωσκόμενοι, ὡς ἀποθνήσκοντες καὶ ἰδοὺ reff. t Luke xxiii. 16,22. Heb. xii. 7, 10. 2 Chron. x. ll. Prov. xix. 18. u Rom. vii. 4 16 ν ch. ii. 2 reff. w 1 Cor. i. 5. ch. ix. ll only. Gen. xiv. 23 al. i z pres., 1 Cor. xvi. 9. 9. αποθνησκομυντεενοι(510) F. may be an indication how the Apostle would have the previous two clauses understood ; but they also may be a transition, altering the previous reference of the second mem- ber of the clause, now that the subject is no longer matter of rumour, as πλάνοι and ἀγνοούμενοι, but matter of fact, as ἀπο- θνήσκοντες, and the following. If the latter alternative be taken, the two clauses will serve as a transition to the subsequent ones, thus: having said, διὰ duspyulas κ. εὐφημίας, he proceeds ὡς πλάνοι (answer- ing to Susp.) καὶ ἀληθεῖς (answering to evd.),—@s ἀγνοούμενοι (still having dus. in view,—as ‘unknown,’ of obscure reputa- tion), καὶ ἐπιγινωσκόμενοι (still looking back at εὐφ., seeing that the ἐπίγνωσις would lead to good repute): then, having by the participles of the latter clause ex- pressed more a matter of fact than did the adjectives of the former one, he passes to ὡς ἀποθνήσκοντες, which has no longer its main reference to the repute of others, but to the fact, see ch. iv. 7 ff.,as exhibited in himself. “1 confess that on the whole this rendering recommends itself to my mind. 9.] καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν is much stronger, more triumphant, than καὶ ζῶντες. There is something still of the idea of one reputed dead and found to be alive ; though I would not say with Meyer that ὡς ἀποθν. alto- gether refers to a supposd triumph of his adversaries, “ Now it is all over with him! His course is ended!” ὡς παιδ.] Surely we must now drop altogether the putative meaning of the ὧς. The sense has been (see above) some time verging that way, and in the clauses which follow, the ὡς expresses just what it does in ὡς θεοῦ διάκονοι, viz. ‘ quippe qui simus.’ Ps. exvii. 18, LX X, seems to have been in his mind: παιδεύων ἐπαίδευσέ με ὁ (om ὁ &) κύ- ριος, καὶ τῷ θανάτῳ οὐ παρέδωκέμε. .. 10.] Here even more clearly than before, the first member of the clause ὡς Aum. ἀεὶ δὲ yalp. cannot express the opinion of his adversaries. For however παιδευόμενος might be wrested to signify ‘a man under the chastisement of God’ as a ground of x = 1 Cor. vii. 30. Josh. i. 11. for i5ou, ert F. μενοι D! F{-gr | (temptati D-lat G-lat [eth] Ambrst). 11. ins w bef κορινθιοι F vulg [copt Orig-int,(om Orig,) ]. ζῶμεν, ws tmadevopevot, καὶ μὴ " θανατούμενοι, 1 ὦ μεν, μενοι, μὴ μενοι, 10 ὡς ’ ‘ ἡ λυπούμενοι ἀεὶ δὲ χαίροντες, ὡς πτωχοὶ πολλοὺς δὲ W σλουτίζοντες, ὡς μηδὲν ἔχοντες καὶ πάντα * κατέχοντες. 11 Τὸ ἡ στόμα ἡμῶν 55 ἀνέωγεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Κορίνθιοι ra μ Pd 4 y see Eph. vi. 19. Sir. for παιδευομενοι, πειραζο- for 2nd ἡμων, υμων BR. reproach, λυπούμενος will surely not bear the meaning‘ folcher der nach gewodbhnlicher πιο ον Anficht trauvig feyn mufte,’ ‘one in such a situation, that according to ordinary human estimation he must be wretched,’ as De Wette,—but must point to the matter of fact, that he is really ‘afflicted. See reff. πτωχοί again can hardly have been a reproach, but sets forth the fact—as poor men, but enrich- ing (not by distribution of alins, as Chrys., Theodoret, Estius, but by imparting spiri- tual riches, see 1 Cor. i. 5) many :—as having nothing (in the sense in which of ἔχοντες are ws μὴ ἔχοντες, 1 Cor. vii. 29, —in the improper seuse of ‘ to possess’ in which we here use the word—thus, we have nothing, are destitute), but possessing (finally and as our own, our inheritance never to be taken away; in that sense of the word ‘to possess’ which this world’s buyers are not to use—oi ἀγοράζοντες, ὡς μὴ κατέχοντες, 1 Cor. vii. 30) all things. See a similar ‘ possession of all things,’ 1 Cor. iii. 22: though this reaches further than even that,—to the boundless riches of the heavenly inheritance. 11—VII. 1.] Earnest EXHORTATIONS TO SEPARATION FROM UNBELIEF AND IM- PURITY. 11—13.} These verses form a conclusion to the preceding outpouring of his heart with regard to his apostolie ministry, and at the same time a transition to the exhortations which are to follow. 11.] Our (my) mouth is open (not past: the use of avémya for ἀνέῳγμαι is common in later Greek: see Palm and Rost’s Lex., and ref.1 Cor. Riickert takes it as past, and renders, ‘ I have begun to speak with you, I have not concealed my apostolic sentiments—I cannot shut my BCDFK LPN ab edefg hkimn ο 17. 47 mouth, but must goon speaking to you yet further.’ The word seems to refer to the free and open spirit shewn in the whole previous passage on the ministry, in which he had so liberally imparted his inner feel- ings to them) towards you, Corinthians (καὶ 7 προςθήκη δὲ τοῦ ὀνόματος φιλίας πολ- λῆς, καὶ διαθέσεως καὶ θερμότητος" καὶ γὰρ 10---14, ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν * πεπλάτυνται' ἡμῖν, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ Β. ζ > 12 οὐ b a θε δὲ ’ a c λά id ace OTEVOXWPELT δ΄͵, ΟΕ -€V ΤΟΙ OTT ayxXvoals υμῶὼν 671 , El) a here bis, Matt. xxiii, 5 only. Psa. exviii. 32. 1 Kings ii. 1. b στενοχωρεῖσθε 15 τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἃ ἀντιμισθίαν (© ὡς τέκνοις λέγω) ὃ πλα- vhee be eh. ΄ δι ue an τύνθητε Kal ὑμεῖς. 20. xlix. 19 only. i. 27 only +. e Acts xvii. 22. iii. 2. Mic. ii. 1. see Acts ii. 5 reff, h = 1 Cor. vi. 6 reff, 12. om δε Cal. 14. ins kat bef μη F(and F-lat G-lat) D-lat Syr eth arm [Ambr,] Ambrst. 14 Μὴ ‘yiveoOe 8 ἑτεροζυγοῦντες © ἀπί- 6 = ch. vii. 15. iv. 8 only. Josh. xvii. 15, Isa. xxviii. Phil. i. 8. Philem. 20. Prov. xii. 10. d Rom. 1 Cor, x. 15. f w. particip. = Heb. v.12. Rev. g here only+. (-γος, Lev. xix. 19.) see 1 Cor. xiv. 21. 13. vuas F. for απιστοις, μετα αἀπιστων F latt [Cypr Lucif Ambr Ambrst Aug]. εἰώθαμεν TOY ἀγαπωμένων συνεχῶς γυμνὰ τὰ ὀνόματα περιστρέφειν, Chrys. Hom. xiii. p. 530 f. See Phil. ἵν. 15; Gal. iii. 1, which last is written under a very different feel- ing),—our (my) heart has become en- larged. These last words are very vari- ously explained. Chrys., Theodoret, Cc., a]., understand them of the expansive effect of love on the heart: Luther, Estius, al., of dilatio gaudii, which does not how- ever agree with πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς be- low : nor with the general context, either of what precedes or of what follows: for to refer it to ch. vii. 4, as Estius, is evidently far-fetched, the intermediate matter being of such a different character. Alii aliter. Meyer holds with Chrys., and refers it to the preceding passage, during which his heart became expanded in love to them. De Wette takes it, “1 have poured out, en- laurged and diffused, my heart to you,’ viz. by speaking thus open-hearted to you. 1 believe the precise sense will only be found by taking into account the πλατύνθ. x. ὑμεῖς below, and the occurrence of the expression in the Psalm (reff.: cf. ἐν πλατυσμῷ, ib., ver. 45). Some light is also thrown upon it by χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς, ch. vii. 2. The heart is considered as a space, wherein its thoughts and feelings are contained. We have seen the same figure in our expressior ‘ narrow-minded.’ In order to take in a new object of love, or of desire, or of ambition, the heart must be enlarged: ὅδὸν ἐντολῶν σου ἔδραμον, ὅταν ἐπλάτυνας Thy καρδίαν μου. The Apostle has had his heart enlarged towards the Corinthians: he could and did take them in, with their infirmities, their interests, their Christian graces, their defects and sins: but they did not. and could not take him in (χωρῆσαι αὐ- τόν) : he was misunderstood by them, and his relation to them disregarded. This he here asserts, and deprecates. He assures them of their place in his heart, which is wide enough for, and does contain them ; and refers back to this verse in ch. vii. 3, thus, προείρηκα ὅτι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν tote .... He tells them, ver. 12.] that they are not straitened in him, i.e. that any constraint which they may feel towards him, any want of confidence in him and persuasion of his real appreciation of their state and interests, arose, not from Ais being really unable to appreciate them, and love them, and advise them,—but from their own confined view of him, of his love, his knowledge of and feeling for them. 13.] τὴν αὐτὴν ἀντιμ., as τὸν ὅμοιον τρό- πον, Jude 7, κλισίας, Luke ix. 14. not governed by κατά understood, but in fact an accus. of a remoter object, answering in many cases exactly to the further removed of the two accusatives in the double ac- cusative government. The sense seems to be compounded of τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, and ἀντιμισθίαν, In the same manner, as a return for my largeness of heart to you. ὡς τέκνοις A. explains ἀντιμισθίαν, --- it being naturally expected of children that they should requite the love and care of their parents, by corresponding love and regard. 14—VII. 1.] Separate your- selves from unbelief and impurity. On the nature of the connexion, Stanley has some good remarks. He now applies to circumstances which had arisen among the Corinthians the exhortation which in ver. 1 he described himself as giving in pur- suance of his ministry of reconciliation. The following exhortations are general, and hardly to be pressed as applying only to partaking of meats offered to idols, as Calv., al., or to marriage with unbelievers, as Estius,—but regard all possible con- nexion and participation,—all leanings towards a return to heathenism which might be bred by too great familiarity with heathens. Become not (‘ne fiatis, molli- ter pro: ne sitzs,’ Bengel : rather, perhaps, as expressing, ‘do not enter into those re- lations in which you must become’) incon- gruous yokefellows (the word and idea from ref. Levit. Hesych.: érepd(uyor of μὴ συζυγοῦντες. τοῦ. explains it, ‘ alte- ram partem jugi trahere,’ but this does not give the force of €repo- :—Theophyl., μὴ ἀδικεῖτε τὸ δίκαιον ἐπικλινόμενοι κ. προςκλινόμενοι οἷς οὐ θέμις : so making the simile that of an unequal balance: but this could hardly be without more precise uoti- . ν 672 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOT® B. VI. 15—18. k i here only. Ps. cxxi. 3N Ed-vat. Ε ἄς. ‘not A. Bdef. only. (-xos, Heb. i. 9.) k Rom. iv. 7 reff. δι Cori. 9. x. 16. -Galfi. 9 al. Lev. vi. 2. m here only +. (-vos, 1 Cor. vii. 5.) ΟῚ τ i? \ > Aw. , nhere only. αὐτῶν θεός, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονται μοι λαὸς. see note. Φ 3 Kings xii. 16. Exod. xxiii. 1. ; \ ΄ Ν otros’ τίς yap ἱ μετοχὴ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ] / \ Ν , 15 7 δὲ m , κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος ; 1ὅ τίς δὲ ™ συμφώνησις ral \ n / X oO / op \ q a \ re / χριστοῦ πρὸς " βελίαρ, ἢ ° τίς “Ὁ μερὶς 4 πιστῷ μετὰ © ἀπί- στου; ris δὲ ᾿ συγκατάθεσις " ναῷ " θεοῦ μετὰ " εἰδώλων; e a \ 5 x 8 ΟΝ t a θὰ - € θ \ ὑμεῖς γὰρ "ναὸς " θεοῦ ἐστε " ζῶντος, καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ἃ ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ‘ ἐμπεριπατήσω, καὶ ἔσομαι 17 διὸ ἡ ἐξέλθατε rhere only τ. (-τίθεσθαι, 1 Cor. x. 19 Col. iii. 16. 2 ‘Tim. i. 5, 14 only. (notl.c.) Lev. xxvi. w Acts xvii, 33. Isa. lii. 11 (free). p Acts viii. 21 reff. q Acts x. 45 reff. Luke xxiii. 51.) s = 1 Cor. iii. 16. vi. 19. Jer. vii. 4. reff. Acts xiv. 15 and note. u Rom. viii. 11. 32 al. vy here only. Levir. xxvi. 12. δικαιοσυνης Kat αδικιας Ὁ], also (but -v7 κ. -1a) D3: δικαιοσυνης μετα (και Orig, [Tert, Cypr, ]) avouias F latt arm Orig,(and int,) [Lucif Ambrst Augatic ]. rec (for ἡ Tis) τις δε, with K rel syr eth Chr, Thdrt Cosm, Thl (c Tert, : txt BCDFLPN ἃ m 17 latt Syr syr-mg copt goth arm Clem, Orig,(and int,) [Ephr, Bas, Euthal-ms] Damasc, Cypr Lucif Ambrst Jer. φωτος (addg 7) D!{and lat] Cypr Lucif, Hil. 15. rec χριστω (prob corrn for conformn to φωτι preceding), with D-gr F-gr KI rel [G-lat syrr goth] Clem-ed, Orig,(and int,) Can-apost-ed [Chr, Nys, Bas, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase,| Tert,: txt BCP 17 vulg(and F-lat) D-lat copt Clem,(-ms,) Orig, Can-apost-mss, Damasc{p1. Ephr, Procop, Lucif, Ambrst Augatic }. elz βελιαλ, with vulg [F-lat] G-lat Clem,{-ed] Tit-ed, Orig-int, Tert, Lucif,: βέλιαν D-gr Καὶ m 47 syr-mg-gr goth(Bel/iam) many-mentioned-by-Jer(“ corrupte’’) Thdrt,: βελιαβ F{-gr] D-lat: txt BCLPX rel fuld(and harl!) syr copt zth arm Orthod, Clem,[-ms, ? ] Orig, Nys, [Cyr-p,] Bas, Ephr, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt, Damase. 8-pe copt. πιστου Β 17 16. ἡμεῖς and ἐσμεν BD!LPN? 17 D-lat copt [eth] (Clem,) Did, Aug, : txt C D°[-gr] FK(°) rel vulg syrr goth arm Ath, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase Orig-int, Lucif, Tert, F(and G-lat) P Orig,. { Ambrst ].—vaot δὲ! Clem,.—earte bef θεου δὲβ Di(and lat) ΕἸ ποῦ F-lat], décit enim G-lat goth Tert, Aug). for καθως e:mev, λέγει yap for αὐτων, avtos for μοι, μου ΒΟΡΝ m 17 arm [Clem, Orig, | Ens, Damasc : txt DFKL rel [latt syrr copt goth] Orig,[-ms,-int, Eus,] Ath, Cyr-jer, Thdrt [Tert Lucif}. wT. (εξελθατε, so BCFR 17. 47 [Euthal-ms] Damasce.) fication) with unbelievers (Winer explains the construction, edn. 6, § 31. 10, Remark 4, thus, μὴ γίν. ἑτεροζυγοῦντες, kal οὕτως ὁμοζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις : better, as De W., μὴ γίν. duo. ἀπίστοις x. οὕτως ἑτεροζυ- γοῦντεΞ5). μετοχή) ‘share in the same thing,’ community. δικαιοσ. is the state of the Christian, being 1 π501Π04 by faith: he is therefore excluded from ἀνομία, the proper fruit of faith being obedience. φωτί, of which we are the children, 1 Thess. v. 5, and not of dark- ness. Meyer remarks, that the fivefold variation of the term to express partner- ship,—perox7h, κοινωνία, cunpeorvnors, μερίς, συγκατάθεσις, shews the Apostle’s com- mand of the Greek language. The con- struction of κοινωνία with a dat. and πρός, is illustrated by Wetst. from Stobzeus, S, 28, εἰ δέ τις ἔστι κοινωνία πρὸς θεοὺς ἡμῖν, —and Philo, leg. ad Caium, ὃ 14, vol. ii. p- 561, τίς οὖν κοινωνία πρὸς ᾿Απόλλωνα, τῷ μηδὲν οἰκεῖον ἢ συγγενὲς ἐπιτετηδευ- κότι; 16.1 After a question begin- ning with πῶς, τίς, and the like, a second question is regularly introduced by δέ. Thus Hom. Od. a. 225, ris dats, ris δὲ ὅμιλος, ὅδ᾽ ἔπλετο; see Hartung, Parti- kellehre, i. 169. Bediap] Heb. ἡ», “contemptibleness, ‘wickedness: found 1 Sam. ii. 12 al., and variously translated by the LXX. Theod. has retained the > Ral / ἀνομίᾳ, ἢ τίς BCDFK LPN δῦ cdetg hklmn 017.47 original form in Judg. xix. 22. It appears _ to have been subsequently personified, and used, as here, for a name of the Evil One (see Stanley). The termination -ap is stated by Meyer to have arisen from the frequent permutation of A and p in the dia- lect of the Grecian Jews. 16.] ovy- κατάθ., ‘agreement in opinions ;’ see reft., and ef. Plato, Gorg. § 122, σὺ δὲ δὴ πότε- pov συγκατατίθεσαι ἡμῖν περὶ τούτων τὴν αὐτὴν δόξαν ἢ ἀντιφῇς:; ναῷ θεοῦ, between you, the Church of God,—see below, and 1 Cor. iii. 16 ;-εἰδώλων, idols, as the lords and ἐπώνυμοι of the heathen world. ὑμεῖς γάρ] explanation of vag θεοῦ as applying to them, and justification of it by a citation from the prophetic Scriptures. The words cited are com- pounded of Levit. xxvi. 12, and Ezek. XxXvii, 26, 27, 17.] The necessity of Vil. J, 2. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 675 w2 f 3: Διὶ Δ oy , a) / , \ ᾿ ἐκ μέσου αὑτῶν καὶ * ἀφορισθὴητε, λέγει κύριος, καὶ x Acts xix. 9 ? ρ ᾽ reff. Υ θά Ny δέ εν θ ὶ Sty ἈΞ δέ (ΜΗ Le 18 \ y = Acts x. 14 akxaVaptou μὴ ἀπτεσῦε' Kayw * εἰφόέξομαι vas. Καὺ " veff. 1 BY yy id “ a ’ , \ e lal a x” 0 / 8 > CA ETOMAL υμιν “ ELS TTATEPA, και UMELS “ EDEDVE μου “ ELS υιοὺυς Kat θυγατέρας λέγει κύριος ὃ τας οὖν ἔχοντες τὰς ° ἐπαγγελίας, ἃ ἀγαπητοί, “ καθαρί- σωμεν f ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ παντὸς μολυσμοῦ " σαρκὸς καὶ ματος, ' ἐπιτελοῦντες J ἁγιωσύνην ἐν * φόβῳ * θεοῦ. 21 Χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς" οὐδένα ἠδικήσαμεν, οὐδένα ™epOei- 4. c Acts i. 4 reff. e Acts xv. 9 reff. ich. viii. 6 reff = Matt. xix. 11,12. (Gen. xiii. 6.) παντοκράτωρ. VII. 1 ταύ- f Ist pers., ch. iii. 1 reff. viii. 83 (80). 2 Mace. v. 27 only. (-ὕνειν, 1 Cor. viii. 7.) j Rom. i. 4 (reff.). 1 Thess. iii. 13 only. m 1 Cor. iii. 17 reff. acs z here only. EZzEK. xx. 34. Zeph. iii. 20. a Matt. xix. 5 \|. Luke iii. 5, (Rev. xxi. 7.) , 2 KINGS vii. Wvev- 14. Jer. xxXxviii. (xxx1.) 33. b here only, h exc. Rev.i. 8 2 KINGS vii, 8. ἃ Rom. xii. 19. ch. xii. 19, Phil. iv. 1. 1 Pet. ii. 11. 1 John ii.7 al. ghere only. Jer. xxiii. 15. Esdr, h so Matt. xxvi. 41 || Mk. k Rom. iii. 18 (reff.). Cuap. VII. 2. υμας F[-gr](not G) [add fratres met Syr]. separation from the heathen enforced by another citation,—Isa. li. 11,—freely given from memory; κἀγὼ eisdét. tu. being moreover substituted, from Ezek. xx. 34, for προπορεύσεται γὰρ πρότερος ὑμῶν κύριος, x. ὃ ἐπισυνάγων ὑμᾶς θεὸς Ἰσραήλ. The ἀκάθαρτον must be under- stood of the pollutions of heathenism generally, not of any one especial polluted thing, as meat offered to idols. 18. | The citation continues, setting forth the blessings promised to those who do thus come out from heathendom. Various passages of the O. T. are combined. In 2 Kings vii. 14 (LXX), we have ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατ., K. αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς vidv'—the expression οἱ υἱοί μου and ai θυγατέρες μου is found Isa. xliii. 6: and τάδε λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ begins the section from which the former clauses are taken, 2 Kings vii. 8 (LXX). VIET] Inference from the foregoing citations : —seeing that we have such glorious (ταύτας in the position of emphasis) pro- mises, we are to purify ourselves (not merely, ‘keep ourselves pure: purifica- tion belongs to sanctification, and is a gradual work, even after conversion). σαρκός, as the actual instrument and sug- gester of pollution: πνεύματος, as the re- cipient through the flesh, and when the recipient, the retainer and propagator, of uncleanness, ‘The exhortation is general : against impure acts and impure thoughts. ἐπιτελ. ἅγιωσ., as De ὟΝ. remarks, gives the positive side of the foregoing negative exhortation: every abnegation and banishing of impurity is a positive advance of that sanctification, in the fear of God (as its element) to which we are called. 2—16.] CoNCERNING THE EFFECT ON THEM, AND RESULTS IN THEIR CONDUCT, WHICH HIS FORMER EPISTLE HAD PRO- DUCED. 2—4.]| He introduces the subject by a friendly assurance of his love Vou. II. and bespeaking of theirs, as before in ch. vi. 11—13. 2.) χωρήσ., see above on ch. vi. 13; δέξασθε ἡμᾶς πλατέως, κ. μὴ στενοχωρώμεθα ἐν ὑμῖν. Theophyl. De Wette, after Bengel, al., renders it, ‘under- stand us rightly,’ referring to ret. Matt. : but even there the meaning is ‘ to take in,’ and only ‘to understand rightly,’ because τὸν λόγον τοῦτον follows. And as Meyer observes, there could not well be any mis- understanding as to what he here says. οὐδένα ἠδ.. κ 7.A.| Reasons why they should make room for him in their hearts : We (when he dwelt among them,—the aorists refer to a set time, not to his course hitherto) wronged no man (in outward acts, namely,—in the exercise of his apos- tolie authority, or the like)—we ruined no man (this probably also of outward con- duct towards others, not as Calv., al., of corrupting by false doctrine),—we cheated no man. To understand, with Riickert, these verbs as applying to the contents of the former Epistle, is very forced. If ἤδικ. had really referred to the severe punish- ment of the incestuous person,—eOeip. to the delivering him over to Satan,—and émAcov. to the power which Paul gained over them by this act of authority,—surely we should have found more express indica- tion of such reference in the text. But no allusion has as yet been made to the former Epistle; and therefore it is much better to understand the words generally of the time when he resided among them. “In how many ways of which history says nothing, may such ruining of others have been laid to the charge of Paul? How easily might his severe visitation of sin, his zeal for eleemosynary collec- tions, his habit of lodging with mem- bers of the churches, and the like, have been thus unfavourably characterized !” Meyer: who remarks, that the emphatic position of οὐδένα thrice repeated is no confirmation of Rtickert’s view. X xX 074 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. VIL. ὺὃ , n ’ δ. / 3 ra) \ p 7 > nch. ii, 1 reff. ρᾶμεν, οὐδένα " ἐπλεονεκτήσαμεν. πρὸς ὃ κατάκρισιν οὐ o = 1 Cor. vil. 35 reff. / / \ ec » lal r Ρ̓ δί ε a ΕῚ λέγω" “ προείρηκα yap OTL ἐν Tals ᾿ KaPOLAls ἡμῶν ἐστε 4 πολλή μοι δ᾽ παῤ- Ρ ch. 11,9. hy : δ: < i ai δὲ, ἣν 5 εἰς τὸ ᾿ συναποθανεῖν καὶ ἃ συνζῆν. i capl. \ a 7 7 ς \ ΄ Be {Montf. (not ῥησία προς ὑμᾶς, πολλὴ μοι * καύχησις ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν Fd.)i. q ch. xiii. 2 reff. r Phil: i. 7. s Rom. iy. 11 reff. tMark xiv. 31. ἡμῶν εἰς Μακεδονίαν οὐδεμίαν ° ἔσχηκεν -" ’ ΜᾺ , ᾽ / ἡμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ “ἐν παντὶ ᾿θλιβόμενοι: ὃν ἔξωθεν ἱ μάχαι, 2 Tim. ii. 11 only +. Sir. xix. 10 only. u Kom. vi. 8. 2 Tim. ii. 11 only +. v = Rom. v. 1 reff. 14. 1Cor. xv. 31. (Rom. iii. 27 reff.) z=ch.i. 3, ἄς. reff. ech. i. 9 reff. d Acts xxiv. 23 reff. ch. v. 6 reff. g Matt. xxiii, 25, 27, 28 al. ii. 23. Tit. iii.9. James iv. 1 only. = Gen. xiii. 7. a Rom. v. 200nly+. (-#s, Mark vii. 37.) a / 3 / A Υ πεπλήρωμαι τῇ “παρακλήσει, * ὑπερπερισσεύομαι τῇ »- τς “~ a \ XN > , χαρᾷ "ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει ἡμῶν. ὃ καὶ γὰρ ἐλθόντων 4 ἄνεσιν ἡ σὰρξ w ch. iii. 12 reff. x = ver. y constr., Luke ii. 40. Rom.i.29 only. 2 Mace. vii. 21. b = ch. iii. 14 reff, e ch. iv. 8 reff. f ch. i. 6 reff. part. constr., h see Deut. xxxii. 29. i2 Tim. 3. rec ov bef προς κατακρισιν, with DFKL rel vss [Chr, Thdrt Damase Ambrst] : txt BCPX 17(appy, from the space after kataxp: . .) [Euthal-ms]. vuwy ἐξ, εστε (but marked for erasure) N?. 4. aft προς vuas ins ἐστιν D}'(and lat). 47. | πολλὴ D1[-gr]. ins ev bef τη xapa B(sic¢ in cod). for nuwr, υμων F[-gr](not 6) Καὶ Ὁ ὁ o. (so F[-gr] K ver 5.) aft oT: ins om ἐστε Β. [υπερπερισσευμαι (for -evoua) L de om 3rd τη F: aft πασὴ τη ins δ. for ἐσχῆκεν, εσχεν BFK: txt CDLPR rel Chr, [Euthal-ms} Thdrt, Damase,. aveow bef exx. CF ἃ [17 syrr] latt Thdrt, [Tert, Ambr, Ambrst]. μενος D!}| tributatio D-lat]. 3.] I do not say it (ver. 2) for condemna- tion (with a condemnatory view, in a spirit of blame: there is no ὑμῶν ex- pressed, nor should it be supplied. He means, ‘I do not say ver. 2 in any but a loving spirit’): for (and this shews it) I have said before (viz. ch. vi. 11 f. see note there) that ye are in our hearts (this was implied in ἡ καρδίᾳ ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται, Vi. 11, In the qualifying words, εἰς τὸ συν. x.T.A., Paul, as Meyer says, is his own commentator), to die together and live together. This is ordinarily understood, ‘so that I could die with you or live with you, —as Hor., ‘Tecum vivere amem, tecum obeam libens,’ Od. iii. 9. 24: which Meyer controverts, owing to ὑμεῖς being the subject of the sentence, and renders, ‘in order to die and to live with us:’ 1. 6. ‘if our lot is to die, in death,—and if our lot is to live, in life, never to be torn from our hearts.’ But to this I would reply, that though ὑμεῖς is the subject of ἐν ταῖς Kapd. nu. ἐστε, it is but an accidental and secondary subject as regards the whole sen- tence ; that they are present in Ais heart, is a sign, not of their state of mind, but of his: therefore the purpose, eis τό, must refer logically to him, the main subject, of whom only the purposes can come into consideration. 4.| παῤῥησία, as in reff., confidence, which leads to and justi- fies καύχησις : not here liberty of speech,’ as Chrys., al. καύχ., to others, in speaking of them. ἢ παρ., the consolation (which JI have received), viz. that furnished by the intelligence from you. Though this is anticipating what follows θλιβο- vv. 7, 9, I cannot but believe it to have been already before the Apostle’s mind, and to have been referred to by the articles before παρακλ. and yap. On the con- struction of πληρόω with an instrumental dative, see reff., and Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 31. 7. Se Kurip. Here. Fur. 372, πεύκαισιν χέρας mAnpovyres,—and Bacche 18, μι- yaow Ἕλλησι βαρβάροις θ᾽ ὁμοῦ πλήρεις ἔχουσα καλλιπυργώτους πόλεις. ὕπερπ.] I am made exceedingly to abound, see Matt. xiii. 12. ‘The pres. in- dicates the abiding of the effect. τῇ χαρᾷ, with the joy; see above. ἐπὶ waco. τῇ OA. ἥμ., in (reff.) all our tribula- tion: refers to both preceding clauses. What θλῖψις he means, is explained in the next verse. πάσῃ here not of all tri- bulation, at all times, which the special reference of παρακλ. and χαρά forbids: but of various sorts of tribulation as speci- fied (ἐν παντί) below. 5—7.] The intelligence received from them through Titus, and its comforting effect on the Apostle’s mind. 5.] γάρ gives a reason for θλίψει above: καί connects with ch. ii. 12, 18, where he has spoken of the trouble which he had before leaving Troas. For also, after our coming to Macedonia, our flesh had no rest (there is a slight, but very slight, distinction from οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί pov, ch. ii. 12, Titus was now present, so that that source of inquietude was removed; but the outward ones of fightings gene- rating inward fears (but see below), yet remained. No further distinction must be drawn—for ἔσωθεν φόβοι evidently BCDFK LPrabk edefg hklmn 017, 47 3—8. 8 ἔσωθεν φόβοι. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ Β. 675 φ', «Κ a 6 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ "', παρακαλῶν τοὺς "" ταπεινοὺς κ = 2.i.4 reff. Isa. xlix. 13. 7 ς lal c μ᾽ > “A / / Κ παρεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς "ἐν τῇ ° παρουσίᾳ Titov: ie Ss. 7 οὐ μόνον δὲ " ἐν τῇ 5 παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ " ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει. ἣ " παρεκλήθη Ὁ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, ἃ ἀναγγέλλων ἡμῖν \ lal , lal : / \ lal τὴν ὑμῶν τἐπιπόθησιν, τὸν ὑμῶν " ὀδυρμόν, TOY ὑμῶν ἰζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ὥςτε με ἂν μᾶλλον * χαρῆναι. ‘ow 3 ΄ e A 2 Χ ans) A > y , » καὶ “ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς ἐν * τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, οὐ " μεταμέλομαι, εἰ \ y , B / \ c 9 x > / > \ καὶ ἡ μετεμελόμην᾽ βλέπω γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἐκείνη εἰ καὶ |. Judg. xxi. 15 Β Ald. ryer. ll only+. Ezek. xxiii. 11 Aq. (-etv, Rom.i.11. -τος, Phil. iv. 1.) p = 1 Cor. xiii.6. xvi. 17. 1 Thess. iii. 7. from Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.} 15. 2 Macc. xi. 6 only. Acts xxv. 10 reff. v ver. 13. y here bis. 6. om 2nd o C 4. 7. nv παρεκληθην D!{ -gr |. om ὑπὲρ εμου 14 lect-13. 8. aft ἐπιστολὴ ins pov D!{and lat] F. for nu., ὑμας F[-gr](not 6). for eg, ev L. με aft μαλλον D Thdrt: aft χαρηναι F: om K τὴ 31-5-9. 109- Luke i. 52. Rom. x11. 16. ch. x. 1. James i. 9. iv.6 & 1 Pet. v. 5 (from Prov. 1ii. 34) er only. 8 OTL εἰ n= ch. 1v. 8. o = 1 Cor: xr 11. SPhil. ἃ 26. ii. 12 al.t 2 Macc. vin. 12. xv. 21 ᾿ only. q Acts xiv. 27 xelf. s Matt. ii. 18 only, ucompir., x see 1 Cor. v. 9 reff. t = Rom. x. 2 reff. w ch. ii. 2 reff. Matt. xxi. 29,32. xxvii. 3. Heb. vii. 21 (from Ps. cix. 4) only. Prov. xxv. 8. see ver. 10. for ev, em: C Chr, Thl-marg. for nu., υμιν DIX? (01 9). for 2nd εἰ και, εἰ δε και B. om yap B D'(and lat) Ambrst-ms: videns quod vulg. (The varr arise from attempts to clear the constr, making εἰ δε καὶ μ. the beginning of a new sentence, and βλεπω, without yap, the apodosis,—or βλεπων κιτ.λ. a qualifying clause: see also notes.) shews that σάρξ must be taken in a wide sense); Without, fightings (the omission of ἦσαν renders the description more graphic), within, fears. Chrys., ew. μάχαι: παρὰ τῶν ἀπίστων ἔσωθ. φόβοι" διὰ τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς τῶν πιστῶν. Hom. xiv. p. 539. So Calv., Grot., Wetst., al., slightly varying in their assignment of each class. But it is better, as Paul speaks of ἢ capt ἡμῶν, to understand ἔξωθεν of the state of things without him [person- ally |], contentions with adversaries either within or without the church, and ἔσωθεν of that within [him personally |, fears, for ourselves, for others, or for you, how you might have received our letter. 6.] τοὺς ταπεινούς, generally, those that are low: ἡμᾶς, as belonging to that class. It was [the] not finding Titus which had given him such uneasiness in Troas, ch. li. 12. ἐν, not ‘dy,’ but in, as the condi- tional element or vehicle of the consolation. So also [twice] in next verse. 7. ἀλλὰ kal... .] notonly. . .. but also with the comfort with which he was comforted concerning you: i. e. ‘we shared in the comfort which Titus felt in recording to us your desire,’ &c. see ver. 13. He re- joiced in announcing the news: we in hearing them. ‘There is no inaccuracy of construction, as De W. supposes. ἐπιπόθησιν, either longing to see me, or longing to fulfil my wishes. The former is the more simple. ὀδυρμόν,---ἐπὶ τῇ ἐπιτιμήσει μου τῇ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἐπιστολῇ, as (Ecum. ζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ) The art. is omitted after ζῆλον, as in τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν κατὰ σάρκα, because the words ζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ cohere in the sense, and form as it were but one, om 7 F. —see Col. i. 4 (iv. 13, v. r.): and Winer, edn. 6, § 20. 2. μᾶλλον, viz. ‘than before, at the mere coming of Titus.’ The emphasis is on μᾶλλον from its position. 8—11.] He expresses his satisfac- tion at the effect produced on them, as superseding his former regret that he had grieved them. 8.1 For (reason of the χαρῆναι) though I even grieved you in (by means of) my epistle, I do not (now) repent (having written it), though I even did repent it (before the coming of Titus). Erasm., al., take εἰ καὶ μετεμ. for ‘ even supposing I repented it before, which was not the case: Calv., al. think ‘verbum poeenitendi improprie positum pro dolorem capere. The reason of these departures from grammatical construction and the meaning of words, is, for fear the Apostle should seem to have repented of that which he did under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But there is no difficulty even on the strictest view of inspiration, in con- ceiving that the Apostle may have after- wards regretted the severity which he was guided to use; we know that Jonah, being directed by inspiration to pronounce the doom of Nineveh, endeavoured to escape the unwelcome duty: and doubtless St. Paul, as a man, in the weakness of his affec- tion for the Corinthians, was tempted to wish that he had never written that which had given them pain. But the result shewed that God’s Spirit had ordered it well, that he should thus write: and this his repentance was repented of again. βλέπω yap κ.τ.λ.} For I see that that let- ter, though but for a time, did grieve you. This seems the only admissible rendering of the words. Chrys. sees in them the XS 2 676 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. VII. Ζ Ν Ὁ Ww Av e val τ 9 fa) id » .“ z(=)Johny. ἦπρος Wpav ἐλυπησει ULAS νυν χαίρω, οὐχ OTL - 1 35, Gal. il 15 only. 1 Thess. ii. 17 866 W ἐλυπήθητε, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι * ἐλυπήθητε * εἰς μετάνοιαν" © ἐλυπή- 4 a BCDFE LPR al cdefy kim: , fal “~ h aNatuiiit. θητε yap ὃ κατὰ θεόν, ἵνα ° ἐν © μηδενὶ ἃ ζημιωθῆτε ἐξ ἡμῶν. 017. 47 Rom. x. 10 Ν \ - 8]. 10 ἡ b b = Rom. viii. | yap κατα θεὸν 27. see ch. xi. 17. ς ch. vi. 3 reff. * , d 1 Cor. iii. 15 κατεργάζεται. reff. e= Ma ,ὔ e / ’ / λύπη μετανοίαν εἰς σωτήριαν f > / 8 ’ / «ς δὲ a“ / ΄ θ / ἀμεταμέλητον & ἐργάζεται, ἡ δὲ TOD κόσμου λύπη θάνατον ll ἐδοὺ γὰρ ' αὐτὸ i τοῦτο "τὸ ” κατὰ - Μαικτ 4 Θεὸν ἡ λυπηθῆναι [ὑμᾶς] πόσην " κατειργάσατο ὑμῖν £ Rom. xi. 29 > only t. g = Rom. ii. 10 reff. 15 reff. “k = Rom. viii. 26 reff. vuas bef ελυπησεν F. 9. om νυν D'(and lat) Syr. h = Rom. iv. 15. v. 3. ch. iv. 17 al. i Acts xxiv. OM αλλ οτι ελυπηθητε N*(ins N-corr! 901} tol!, 10. ree κατεργαζεται, with FKLN3 rel Orig, [Bas, Antch,] Thdrt Thl Ge: txt BCDPN' m Clem, (Orig,) Chr-mss [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms] Damasc. (om last clause (homeotel) K 17. 31. 108!-14-78.) 11. om vuas (as unnecessary, υμιν occurring below: and to express, as above, the abstract and not the concrete) BC F[not F-lat] δὲ! 17 [Bas, Euthal-ms] Ambrst: ins DKL[P]83 rel Clem, Bas, Chr, Thdrt Damase ΤῺ] (ec. katnpy. BD k! m. ins ev bef υμιν CFP? ¢ ἃ 47 vulg [Syr] syr Bas,[-2-mss,] Chr Thdrt ΤῺ] [Ambrst]: om BDKLN' rel [arm (copt Euthal-ms)] Clem, Damase Cc, reason of ov μεταμέλομαι, and adds (Hom. xv. p. 543) τὸ μὲν yap λυπηρὸν βραχύ, τὸ δὲ ὠφέλιμον διηνεκές. It appears then that he would render εἰ καὶ πρὸς ὥραν, ‘if even for a season, = ‘scarcely for any time.” Rinek (lucubr. crit. p. 162) would begin a new sentence with εἰ καὶ μετεμε- Adunv, and parenthesizing βλέπω... .. ὑμᾶς, regard νῦν χαίρω, x.T.A. as the apo- dosis. But this is very unnatural, with so abrupt a beginning as ef καί. It would certainly have been εἰ δὲ καί: and the present, βλέπω, would give no reason for the past, μετεμελόμην, which had passed away. The best sense, as well as the most legitimate rendering, is to regard βλέπω . ὑμᾶς as the epexegesis of ἐλύπησα, as above. 9.1 νῦν, emphatic, as dis- tinguishing χαίρω from μετεμελόμην : now that I know not only of your grief, but of its being grief which worked repentance. κατὰ θεόν] as Εἰ. V., after a godly sort: ‘with reference to God, see ref. Rom. and note : ‘‘ secundum, hic significat sensum animi Deum spectantis et se- quentis,” Bengel. αὕτη yap 7 καλὴ λύπη, ὡς τό γε κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον λυπεῖσθαι κακόν. (Ecum. Cf. κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, 1 Cor. xv. 82. ἵνα, κιτ.λ.7 in order that ye might in nothing be damaged by us: not ἐκ- βατικῶς, so that ye did not... ., as many Commentators :—the divine purpose of their grief is indicated; ‘ God so brouglit it about, in order that your grief occasioned by me might have, not an injurious, but a beneficial effect.’ 10.] How ‘grief according to God’ produces such an effect. For grief according to God works (brings about, promotes, see ref.) repent- ance unto salvation never to be regretted. ἀμεταμέλητον best belongs to σωτηρίαν, as Vulg., Theophyl., Aug., Est., Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette; not to μετάνοιαν, as most Commentators :—not necessarily however from the position of the words, as Meyer and De Wette maintain: for what more common than for the predi- cate of a substantive (eis σωτηρίαν) to be paced between it and a qualifying adjec- tive P—but on account of the sense, and the fact that not ἀμετανόητον, but aueta- μέλητον is chosen, so that the play in E. V., ‘repentance not to be repented of, does not seem to have been intended. De W. well explaius σωτηρία ἀμεταμέλητο---- ‘salvation which none will ever regret’ having attained, however difficult it may have been to reach, however dearly it may have been bought. ἣ τ. κόσμου λύπη] τί δέ ἐστι, κατὰ κόσμον ; ἐὰν λυ- πηθῇς διὰ χρήματα, διὰ δόξαν, διὰ τὸν ἀπελθόντα. Chrys. ib, τοῦ Koop. is sub- jective; ‘the grief felt by the children of this world, θάνατον) Death eter- nal, as contrasted with σωτηρίαν : not ‘deadly sickness, or ‘suicide,’ as Theo- phyl. (a part, πάντως μὲν τὸν ψυχικόν, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ τὸν σωματικόν), al. The grief which contemplates nothing but the blow given, and not the God who chastens, can produce nothing but more and more alienation from Him, and result in eternal banishment from His presence. So that épyal. is rather works, ‘contributes to, aud «atepyal., works out, ‘results in.’ 11. The blessed effects of godly grief on themselves, as shewn by fact. αὐτὸ τοῦτο, this very thing, of which I have been speaking. σπου- δήν, earnestness, as contrasted with your former carelessness in the matter. ἀλλά} nay, not σπουδήν merely,—that is 9g—13. ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 677 ™ ἀλλὰ \ ™ ἀλλὰ Ὁ \ ἐσυνεστήσατε ἃ ἑαυτοὺς σπουδήν, τ ἀλλὰ " ἀπολογίαν, π ἀλλὰ φόβον, τ ἀλλὰ τ ἀλλὰ 1 ἐκδίκησιν. Ὁ “ Ν ᾿. αγανακτῆήσιν, 1 ἘΣ q ζῆλον 1 Ξ ΤΟΝ 111. ᾽ 2. nm == Gori. (Acts xxv. 16 f P ἐπιπόθησιν, 8 | s \ ἐν ὃ παντὶ reff.) Wisd- Wit \ 3 w A Ww / 12 BLA ’ \ 3 10 ] ayvous €lvat “τῷ πραγματι. apa € Kat τυ ἘΣ ‘only ¥. 5 ’ \ , ᾿ χ ἀδικήσαντος οὐδὲ ἕνεκεν τοῦ (re ΒΝ p ver. 7 only +- g =- ver..7. r Rom. xii. 19 { ater Ψ A ὑμῖν, οὐχ ἕνεκεν τοῦ * ἀδικηθέντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνεκεν τοῦ boast let τὴν ᾿σπου- A ς ~ A ς \ e ~ ‘ e A δὴν ὑμῶν THY ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς 2 ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. sche. ae « a ΄ ch. vi. 4 13 διὰ τοῦτο ὃ παρακεκλήμεθα. ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ ὃ" παρακλήσει ἡ ref: usn .᾽ Matt. 11. 9. Rom. vi. 11, 13, 16. xii. 19. ch. xiii. 5. vch. xi. 2. Phil. iv. 8. 1 Thess. νυ. 02. Tits 1 Pet. iii. 2. _1 John iii. ᾿ἐίϑοῖν, Prov. χχ. 9. (- νῶς, Phil. i.17. -νότης, ch. vi. 6.) x Eur. Med. y = ch. ii. 14. iii. 3, &c. constr., here only. ἘΞ sale reff. Ὁ ch. i. 3, ἄο. reff. ανακτησιν (so 17) and επιποθιαν XN’. (αλλα (last), so BD'FLPX abdf mo 17. 47 {Clem, Bas, Thdrt ].) rec ins ev bef tw πραγματι, with D?-4{and lat] KLP rel [arm Bas,] Chr, Thdrt Ambrst : txt BC D![-gr] FX 17 vulg goth Clem, {Euthal-ms ] Damasc, Pel Bede. 12. (evexev (866), so BCDFK L(2nd and [3rd]) PX a ἃ Εἰς 17.) [ D!-gr trausposes αδικησαντος and αδικηθεντος.] ins add’ bef ovde BR* m 73. elz μων τὴν ὑπερ ὑμων (see notes), with ἃ 47 vulg(and F-lat) goth arm-use Chr, Thdrt Ambrst: vu. τ. um. vu. D)[-gr] F-gr δὲ: nu. τ. um. nu. nostram que est pro nobis G [ D'-lat]: txt BCD? 3KLP rel D?-lat E-lat syrr copt eth [arm-zoh Euthal-ms] Damasc. ii. 5. James iii. 17. w see l Thess. iv. 6. z= Actsiv. 19 reff. Rom. xii. 17. saying too little;—but... ἀπολο- γίαν] viz. to Paul by means of Titus,— asserting their innocence in the matter; see below. ἀγανάκτησιν πρὸς τὸν πεπορνευκότα. Theophyl. φόβον] “πο eum virga venirem, Bengel: fear of Paul: not here of God. The context is brought out well by Chrys. and Theophy]l. The latter says, on ἐπιπόθησιν, .---πρὸς ἐμέ. εἰπὼν δὲ φόβον, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ αὐθεντεῖν, συντόμως διωρθώσατο, ἐπυπόθησιν εἰπών" ὅπερ ἐνδεικτικὸν ἀγάπης, οὐκ ἐξουσίας. ζῆλον] on God’s behalf, to punish the offender ;---ἐκδίκησιν being the inflic- tion of justice itself. Bengel remarks, that the six accusatives preceded by ἀλλά fall into three pairs: ἀπολογ. and ἀγανάκτ., relating to their own feelings of shame,— φόβ. and ἐπιπόθ. to Paul,—Cr. and ἐκ- dix. to the offender. ἐν παντί must be understood only of participation of guilt : by their negligence, and even refusal to humble themselves (1 Cor. v. 2), they bad in some things made common cause with the offender. Of this, now that they had shewn so different a spirit, the Apostle does not speak. συνεστήσατε]) have commended yourselves by proving that ye are; a pregnant construction. τῷ ap., the dat. of regard: see Rom. vi. 20, and Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 31. 1. 4,—the matter, —perhaps, as in ref., not only, ‘ of which I have been speaking,’ —but with allusion to the kind of sin which was in question. ayvovs, pure of stain. 12.] He shews them that to bring out this zeal in them was the real motive of his writing to them, and no private considerations. ἄρα, accordingly,—‘in accordance with the result just mentioned.’ εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα tp. is parallel with εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς, ver. 8,—though (i. 6. assumed that) I wrote (severely) to you. The ἀδικη- θείς would be the father of the incestuous person, who γυναῖκα τοῦ πατρὸς εἶχεν, 1 Cor. v. 1 Theodoret imagines it to mean the stepmother, who was the adul- teress; and thinks that the father was dead. But there is no ground for this in 1 Cor. v., and the masculine participle, though not decisive against it, is at least more naturally explained on the other view. Others (as Wolf, Bleek, al.) suppose Paul himself to be meant, which however would be in direct contradiction to ch. 11. 5: Bengel, al., the Corinthians, ‘singularis pro plurali, per euphemiam,’ which is forced : Theophyl., al., both the persons concerned (---ἀμφότεροι yap ἀλλήλους ἠδίκησαν) :— and Neander, al., take τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος as = τοῦ ἀδικήματος, ‘the fault com- mitted :'—which however would not be true, for the Apostle certainly did write on account of the committal of the fault. It would be easy for any of the Apostle’s adversaries to maintain that the reproof had been administered from private and interested motives. ἀλλ᾽ ἕνεκεν . . . | But he wrote, in order to bring out thet - zeal on his behalf (i.e. to obey his com- mand), and make it manifest to themsel: ves in God’s sight. The other reading, ἡμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, has been an alteration owing to not understanding τ. σπουδ. vu. τ. tw. Hu., and is inconsistent with the fact: it was not to exhibit to them his zeal for them that he wrote, but to make manifest to (πρός ‘among, ‘chez’ them, 678 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. VII. 14—16. cch.i 12 reff. ἡμῶν “ὃ περισσοτέρως ἃ μᾶλλον * ἐχάρημεν “ ἐπὶ TH χαρᾷ double com- 5 ᾿ par., Mark ΠΝ Ὁ 8 > / \ 8 fal > A h par, Mark | Lutou, oT’ ὅ ἀναπέπαυται To ὃ πνευμα αὐτου i. 23, ἀπὸ πάντων e lal ὲ 14. “ ” i > A i ΄ \ ΄ lal i , > avert. ὑμῶν ὅτι εἴ τι ‘avT@ ᾿ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἱ κεκαύχημαι, ov e 1 Cor. xiii. hs Η δ ate ᾽ ' 5 β β ᾿ off. kK ea eS κατῃσχύνθην, ἀλλ’ ὡς πάντα ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ἐλαλήσαμεν q “ ¢ \ ΄ ς A ὃ \ , ᾽ ΄ eee. ὑμῖν, οὕτως καὶ ἡ ' καύχησις * ὑμῶν ἡ αὶ ἐπὶ Τίτου ἀλήθεια 18 reff. ᾽ 7 ~ 7 h= λοις ἢ. 85. ἢ ἀγενήθη, 18 καὶ τὰ “σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ “ περισσοτέρως ren. ᾿ : 9 - \ / a iconstrch- it Pele ὑμᾶς ἐστιν ἃ ἀναμιμνησκομένου τὴν πάντων ὑμῶν k Rom. v. 5 rs 7 τ Ὁ Nat / δεν , 286 θ ea x33. x11 1 ὑπτακοήν, ὡς " μετὰ ‘ φόβου καὶ ‘ τρόμου ἐ ἐξἕξασθε αὐτον. al. 5. ylll. 116 16 / Ὁ“ u οἰ ΠῚ Ν Vv SCL ’ ΄ A Pag χαίρω, ὅτι ἃ ἐν ἃ παντὶ " θαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν. m w. gen. = Acts xxiii. 30 reff. q 1 Cor. iv. 17 reff. t 1 Cor. ii. 3 reff. n = 1 Cor. i. 30. r Rom. i. 5 reff. u ch. iv. 8 reff. o = ch. vi. 12 reff. p = ch. viii. 13, 14 reff. s = Matt. xxviii. 8. Markiii.5. 1 Chron. xxix. 22. γ᾿ ch. v. 6,8 reff. 13. rec places δὲ aft περισσοτερως (appy to conform to the exapnuev em below, by joining παρακεκλ. ert: then also the change of nu. into vu. became necessary), with rel eth (Ec: ome 32-6-9. 71 [arm Euthal-ms} Thdrt: txt BCDFKLPR ἃ 17 latt syrr copt goth Chr-comm,(and Mtt’s ms,) Damasc(has ἐπειδὴ for em δε) ΤῊ], [Ambrst]. rec vuwy, with F-gr KL rel syr-w-ast copt Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasce ] Bede: txt BCDGKPR 17 latt syrr goth eth arm Ambrst Pel. 14. αυὐτων &. αλλα C. κεκαυχημαι bef ὑπερ vuwy ΕἾ (not F-lat) Syr copt] Chr, ΤῊ]. παντοτε C F/-gr]syr copt Chr[-txt, ], omnia aut omnino G-lat. υμιν bef ev ad. edad. CDP vulg goth (eth) [Ambrst]: om vay X1(txt R-corr! bl), * rec ἡμῶν (see note), with DGKLPN rel latt syrr goth [arm Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt [Damasc] Ambrst: vuov B F-gr ὁ copt Thi. (Ὁ def.) [ Euthal-ms }. Damasce. 15. om παντων XR}, 16. elz aft xa:pw ins ovy, with m syr-mg copt [ Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase Ambrst]. to bring out among them, their zeal to regard and obey him. 13.] On this account (on account of the fulfilment of this purpose) we are comforted: but in addition to (or, on the occurrence of) our comfort, we rejoiced very much more (reff.) at the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all. A similar declaration to that in ver. 7, where not only the arrival of Titus, but his comfort wherewith he was comforted by them, is described as the ground of the Apostle’sjoy. | According to the received reading, the sense is: ‘ Therefore we are consoled on account of your consolation (either gen. subj., ‘ that which you feel on account of the good issue of the affair,’— or gen. object., ‘the consolation received from you’): but we rejoiced very much more, &c. This however would hardly represent the real state of things. 14.| This increased joy was produced by the verification which my former boasting of you to Titus now received. εἴ τι. .] see one particular in which he boasted of them, ch. ix. 2. ov Katyox.| I was not put to shame, viz. by being shewn, on Titus’s coming to you, to have boasted in vain. GAN ὡς... .1 ‘But truthfulness was shewn to be my constant rule of speech, to whomsoever I spoke.’ But as om last ἡ BX! 115-9! for emt τίτου [so syr-mg], προς τιτόν ad Titum DFP m [latt syrr] goth arm: om BCDFKLPN rel latt Syr we spoke (gezerally, not merely in our teaching, as Theodoret, al.) all things in truth(truthfully) to you, so also our boast- ing concerning you (gen. obj.: the rec. ἡμῶν agrees better with the comparison, of ‘ our words’ in general, with ‘ owr boasting’ in particular : but on that very account it is probably an alteration: and this is the im- plied meaning at all events) before Titus was (was proved to be: was, as shewn by proof) truth. De W. suggests that the Apostle had described (by anticipation) to Titus in glowing terms the affection and probable prompt obedience of the Corin- thians, as an encouragement to his some- what unwelcome journey. 15.] en- larges ἀλήθεια ἐγενήθη. And his heart is more abundantly (turned) toward you, remembering as he does the obedience of you all, how (i.e. which was shewn in the fact, that) with fear and trembling ye received him. ‘ear and trembling,’ i. e. ‘lest ye should not pay enough regard to my injunctions, and honour enough his mission from me.’ 16.] I rejoice (more expressive than with a connecting particle) that in every thing I am (re)- assured by you; ‘am of good courage, in contrast to my former dejection, owing to your good conduct.’ The ordinary ren- dering, ‘I can have confidence in you,’ BCDFK LPNab cdefg hklmn ο 17. 47 VIII. 1—5. ΠΡΟΣ VIII. 1 ἡ Γνωρίζομεν δὲ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ Β. 679 ς A » Γ A ,ὔ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὴν * γάριν wiCor.xii.3 μ ᾽ φ y 7) xX p be τ. xii a} mY. ἢ: A “ S / lal / nw = < τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν *Y δεδομένην ¥ ἐν ταῖς 5 ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Μακε- * 1 Cor. i. 4 y ve r. 16 reff. “ a a / ς δονίας, 5 ὅτι ἐν πολλῇ 5 δοκιμῇ θλίψεως ἡ περισσεία ἴ ταν Rom. xvi. 16 reff. Py A a \ ς \ έ a τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτῶν Kal ἡ °Kata “ βάθους “ πτωχεία αὐτῶν 5 Romy. 4reff f > U f ᾽ \ g r, fol “ ἐπερίσσευσεν ‘eis τὸ ὅ πλοῦτος τῆς - a \ / ὃ ὅτι ixata δύναμιν * μαρτυρῶ καὶ |™ παρὰ ™ δύναμιν, A A , 2 avOaipetot, 1. μετὰ πολλῆς παρακλήσεως e Ὁ Rom. v. 17. h ch.cxio; James i. 21 only. Eccles. i. 3 al. c here only, , 5 Seomevor Fyre, edn. 6, ἢ 51.2. ΄ , 9 ~~ GATROTHTOS αὐτῶν, 4 \ \ / an A 4 ἡμῶν THY “χάριν καὶ THY " κοινωνίαν τῆς " διακονίας τῆς « Rom. αὶ. 33 re Cit \ 5) , ὅτις, t εἰς τοὺς ἃ ἁγίους, © καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν, GAN ἑαυτοὺς © "ε:.9. Rev. ii. 9 only. Job xxx. 27. A ~~ / \ [4 wn \ la σι ἔδωκαν πρῶτον τῷ κυρίῳ. καὶ ἡμῖν " διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ, τ Rom δ g neut., Eph. i. 7. ii. 7. iii. 8, 16. Phil. iv. 19. Col. i. 27. ἡ... 2. 1 i k Rom. x. 2. Ps. exxxiv. 5. n ver. 17 only+. Exod. xxxv. 5 Sym. = Rom. xii. 8 reff. xxv. 15. 1 Chron. xxix. 2. 2,4. Rom. xiv. 5. Heb. xi, 11. iii. 54. ὑπὲρ 6., ch. i.8. o = ch, vil. 15 reff, rch. vi. 14 reff. v Rom. xv. 32 reff. s Acts vi. 1 reff. Cuap. VIII. 2. βαθος (for -θου5) D! [(k)] o. rel: txt ΒΟΡΝῚ 17. 31. : h Rom. xii. 8 reff. i Matt. Gal. iv. 15. Col. iv. 13. 1 = Luke xiii. m here only. παρὰ δύν. μετέχειν, Thucyd. (-τως, 2 Mace. vi. 19.) q = Acts xxiv. 27. xxv. 3,9. Sir. xxx. 6. t = 1 Cor. xvi. 1 reff. u = Acts ix. 13 reff. rec Tov πλουτον, with DF KL? 3. rec (for mapa) ὑπερ (see ch i. 8), with KLP rel Chr, Thdrt [ Damasc]: txt BCDFX 17 { Euthal-ms ]|.—homeeotel in 47 δυν. to Suv. 4. ins rns bef παρακ. Cappy). rec at end adds δεξασθαι ἡμας, with [b?] hk: aft kowwviay ins δεξασθαι c: om BCDFKLPX rel latt syrr copt [eth Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase Orig-int, Aug, ]. 5. ηλπικαμεν B 80. is wrong in not giving the indic. θαῤῥῶ, and still more, in making θαῤῥεῖν ἐν mean ‘to have confidence in,’ which is unexam- pled. Meyer, who remarks this, does not notice, that the strongest reason against it is not mere want of usage, but the psycho- logical meaning of θαῤῥεῖν, which is not like πεποιθέναι, descriptive of a relative, but of an absolute state of mind,—to be of good courage: and this admits only of qualification as to the ground of that good courage ; thus we have θαῤῥεῖν ὑπέρ, περί, ἐπί, in the sense of ‘rejoicing at,’ ‘feeling confident concerning :’ but θαῤ- ῥεῖν ἐν for ‘ to trust in,’ as πεποιθέναι ἐν, would, I think, be inadmissible. Meyer quotes ἐν σοὶ πᾶσ᾽ ἔγωγε σώζομαι, Soph. Aj. 519, where, as here, ἐν gives the ground of the verb as zz the person spoken of. Cuap. VIII. 1—IX. 15.] Szconp part OF THE EPISTLE: CONCERNING THE COL- LECTION FOR THE SAINTS. 1—6.] He informs them of the readiness of the Macedonian churches to contribute for the poor saints (at Jerusalem), which led him also to beg of Titus to complete the collection at Corinth. See some interest- ing geographical and historical notices in Stanley’s introduction to this section, edn. 2, pp. 479 f. 1.] δέ is transitional,— passing on to new matter: so 1 Cor. vii. 1 ; viii. 1 al. fr. χάριν] For every good gift and frame of mind comes by divine grace, not by human excellency : and this occasion was most opportune for resting αλλα CD! 17: και 47. the liberality of the Macedonian churches on God’s grace, that he might not be ex- tolling them at the expense of the Corin- thians, but holding out an example of the effusion of that grace, which was common to the Corinthians also, if they sought and used it.. It is a mistake, with Orig., Erasm.,.al., to understand ἐμοί or ἡμῖν after δεδομένην “quemadmodum adfuerit mihi Deus. in ecclesiis:’ see the construction διδόναι ἐν, in reff.:—given among,—shed abroad in, the churches of Macedonia. 2.] how that (depends on γνωρίζομεν) in much proof of tribulation (though they were put to the proof by much tribulation) (was) the abundance of their joy (i. e. their joy abounded), and their deep poverty (κατὰ βάθους“, lit. ‘down into the depth, as καθ᾽ ὅλου, ‘throughout the whole’) abounded to (‘abunde cessit in,’ as Meyer, &c. or rather perhaps, ‘ abounded,’ produced abundant fruit, ‘so as to bring about’... .) the riches (τὸ 7A. the riches which have actually become manifest by the result of the collection of their liberality (see ref. Rom. and note). 38—5.] Proof of this. There is no difficulty, and no ellipsis, in the construction. For aceord- ing to their power, I testify, and beyond their power, voluntarily, with much exhortation beseeching of us the grace and fellowship of the ministry to the saints (i.e. to allow them a share in that grace and fellowship), and not as we ex- pected (i.e. far beyond our expectation), 680 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. VIII. «ς A 4 A w—ch.vii.s. ὁ Γ᾽ εἰς τὸ * παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς Τίτον, * ἵνα καθὼς." προενήρ- BcpFK Heb. xi. 3. x 1 Cor. i. 10 ee \ 2 / > ¢ a \ A a ΄ ἕατο, OUTWS Kal ETLTENETH εἰς υμᾶς καὶ Τὴν Xap reff. ᾽ . , ‘\ , 7 7 τ ταύτην. Τὺ ἀλλ᾽ ὥςπερ " ἐν “ παντὶ ἃ περισσεύετε, πίστει Gal. ui. 3, r , \ ΄ - \ a Phi.i6. καὶ “ λόγῳ καὶ “ γνώσει καὶ ‘macy Samovdn καὶ τῇ ἐξ x Rom. xv. 28. oe ΡΞ , “ \ - t τὶ 7 ἐμ. νη. ὑμῶν "έν ἡμῖν ἀγάπῃ, wa καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ TH ὃ χάριτι il. i, 6. ’, > 3. 5 \ ΄ 3 \ \ a Ikingstiaz, ἢ περισσεύητε. 8. ov κατ᾽ ‘émuTaynv λέγω, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς a=1Cor.xvi. ¢ , a Oe pre AN e , ae ety kl ὗ 2 γον. ἴ,. ἑτέρων ὃ σπουδῆς, καὶ * τὸ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀγάπης "' γνήσιον - — 7 , ‘ \ 4 cal / γ΄ A τ Ati Ἦ δοκιμάζων 9 (γινώσκετε yap τὴν χώριν TOD κυρίου ἡμῶν 6. x. 20. a A ¢ ? - ΄, ΄ ” xxviis. Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, ὅτι dv ὑμᾶς " ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὦν, c ν. em, d Ξ Πστενν: 58. Col. ii.7. 1 ΤΏΘΕΒ, iv. 1. e 1 Cor. i. 5. f = Acts xx. 19 reff. z Rom. xii. 8, 11 reff. hsee 1 Johniv.9. (John xvii. 26?) i Rom. xvi. 26 reff. k neut.. 1 Cor. i. 25, &c. reff. 1 Phil. iv. 3. 1Tim.i.2. Tit.i.4only+. Sir. vii. 18 only. (-ws, m Rom. xiv. 22 reff. Tobit iv. 21. Phil. ii. 20.) 8. Prov. xxiii. 21. 6. for προεν., evnptato B: mponpé. 47. 7. περισσευητε CP Chr-montf,. n here only. = Judges vi.6. Ps. xxxiii. 10. Ixxviii, ins ev bef πιστει N'(N3 disapproving). ef ἡμῶν ev υμιν Ba Ὁ m 81. 73-4. 80. 238 Syr (copt) arm Orig-int,: εξ uu. ev uu. no: εἴ uuwy eis nuas 17: txt CDFKLPR rel [latt syr goth eth Chr Euthal-ms Thdrt Aimbrst-mss Aug]. [with k!(?)]: txt BCDFKLPX rel. 9. om xpicrov B Ambr,. 15. 238 arm-mss Orig,(-int,) Eus,. but themselves they gave first (i.e. above ail: asthe inducing motive: not first in point of time, but in point of importance, see Rom. ii. 9, 10) to the Lord, and to us by the will of God (the Giver of grace, who made them willing to do this: not = κατὰ τὸ θέλ. τ. θ., which only expresses (whatever it may imply) consonance with the divine will: διὰ τοῦ θελ. τ. @ makes the divine will the agent). 6.] So that we besought Titus (not, Titus be- sought ws, see ver. 17), that (the aim, and purport as well, of our request), as he had previously (before the Macedonians began to contribute: ‘during his visit from which he had now returned’) begun it, so he would also complete among you (the con- struction is pregnant—éAé@y εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐπιτελέσῃ) this grace also (this act of grace or mercy, reff. kal,—as well as other things which he had to do among them, It does not belong to ταύτην, ‘this grace also, as well as other graces,’ but to τὴν χάριν ταύτην altogether). 7—15. | Exhortations and inducements to perform this act of charity. 7.] ἀλλά marks the transition to an exhortation, as in reff. It at the same time implies, as Herm. ad Viger. p. 812 (in Meyer), ‘satis argumen- torux allatum esse.’ πίστει, see ch. i. 24, λόγῳ κ. γνώσει, see ref. and for yv., 1 Cor. viii. 1. πάσῃ σπου- δῇ, because σπουδή may be manifold even in a good sense. Grot. well ex- plains it, ‘studium ad agendas res bo- nas.’ τῇ ἐξ tp. ἐν Hp. ay.] your love to us;—the love which, arising περισσευσητε DIF. 8. δια τὴν er. σπουδὴν D: propter D-lat G-lat Ambrst Aug). δοκιμαζω D}[-gr] F[-gr] Chr-ms. quas CK ak]! mo 19. 41. 55. 65. 74. 89. 93. 109- elz ἡμετερας from you, has us for its object: see reff. According to the reading, ἐξ ἡμῶν ev ὕμ., the only meaning agreeing with the context is, ‘the love (to God and man) which, arising from our teaching, is planted in you.’ ἵνα καὶ «.7.A.] the sense is imperative,—rerAevw, or βούλομαι, —(or βλέπετε, see 1 Cor. xvi. 10,)—being omitted. So Soph. Cd. Col. 156, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τῷδ᾽ ἐν ἀφθέγκτῳ, μὴ προςπέσῃς νάπει. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 148, 9. ταύτῃ is emphatic here, although ταύτην is not in ver. 6: ‘this grace also;—other graces having been enumerated. Grotius remarks, ‘non ignoravit Paulus artem rhetorum, movere laudando.’ 8.] Lest his last words should be misunderstood, he explains the spirit in which they were said: not as a command, but by way of inducement, by mention of the earnestness of others, and to try the genuineness of their love. Kat ἐπιτ.] not, ‘in consequence of a com- mand from God,’ as Dr. Burton,—but, by way of command (1 Cor. vii. 6). διὰ τῆς is not = διὰ τήν, “ by occasion of, as E. V.:—but treats the ἑτέρων σπουδή as the instrument by which, in the way of emu- lation, the effect was to be produced. The participial construction is as in 1 Cor. iv. 14, 9.1 Explanation of ‘trying the genuineness of your love,’ by uphold- ing His example in the matter, Whom we ought to resemble. τ. χάριν, the (act of) grace :—the beneficence. ὅτι] consisting in this, that... mh. ov] The participle refers to the time when LPN at cdefg hklimn ο 17.47 6—11. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 68] ZA € al ee , Oo ΄ Ρ / 10 \ ar , Wa ὑμεῖς TH ἐκείνου “πτωχείᾳ ἢ πλουτήσητε) 10 καὶ 4" γνώ- ο ver. 2 reff. , , pe Ἢ e = = ev. lll. d μην ἐν τούτῳ * δίδωμι. τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν " συμφέρει, ᾿ οἵτινες 18. Lukexi. » ΄ \ a ? \ \ A Ui iv. 8.) οὐ μόνον TO ποιῆσαι ἀλλὰ καὶ TO θέλειν ἃ προενήρξασθε « " 1 Cor. i. 10 sets , \ ν \ = 2 (τ68.). ‘amo " πέρυσι" ' νυνὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι ™ ἐπιτελέσατε, τ Cor. vi. 25. reff. ; t = Acts x. 41 reff. Rom. i. 25 al. u ver. 6, v ch. ix. 2 only+. πρὸ πέρυσι, Demosth. 467. 14. w ver. 6 reff. [τὴ ex. wr. bef vuers D3 F latt Ambrst. for εκεινου, αὐτου D-gr F-gr Orig, Eus,, allius latt. ] 10. for o:tives, ort F Syr. for mpoev., ενηρξασθε DIF. the historic act implied in the aorist yourselves so willing.’ A command from ἐπτώχευσεν took place. He, being rich, me would be a lowering of you, and depre- became poor :—not, as De W., merely by _ ciation of your zeal) began before them (the His renunciation of human riches during Macedonian churches, see below) not only His life on earth, but by His exinanition of the act, but also the mind to act, from a His glory (Phil. ii. 6,7), when, as Athanas. year ago: 1. 6. ‘not only were you before (contra Apol. ii. 11, vol. ii.(Migne), p. 757), them in the deed itself, but also in the will τὴν πτωχεύσασαν φύσιν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀνελά- ἴο do it.’ The sense has been missed Bero. The stress is on δι᾿ ὑμᾶς, to raise by many of the Commentators, from not the motive of gratitude the more effec- observing the comparison implied in προ- tually in them. τῇ ἐκ. πτωχ. πλουτή- ενήρξασθε, and applying it only to the Co- onte | that by His poverty (as the efficient rinthians themselves beginning. In that cause) ye might become rich: viz. with case, as the will comes before the deed, to the same wealth in which He was rich,— say, you began not only to do, but also to the kingdom and glory of Heaven, includ- wid/, would be unmeaning. Some, in con- ing τὰ μυρία ἅπερ παρέσχεν ἡμῖν ayabd,as sequence, as Grot., al., and the Peschito, Chrys. (Hom. xvii. p. 559): who had just have arbitrarily assumed an inversion before said, εἰ μὴ πιστεύεις, ὅτι ἡ πτωχεία of terms, so that ‘non solum facere, πλούτου ἐστὶ ποιητική, ἐννόησόν σου τὸν sed velle’ should =‘ non solum velle, sed δεσπότην, καὶ οὐκέτι ἀμφιβάλῃς- (al. -Aezs). facere.” Others, as Chrys., Theodoret, al., See the various possible meanings discussed LErasm., Calv., Beza, al., Billroth, Olsh., in Stanley’s note. 10.] ver. 9 was’ Riickert, al. m., have taken θέλειν = “ to parenthetic: he now resumes the οὐ κατ᾽ dowitha good will, which is certainly not ἐπιταγὴν Aéyw .... And I give my _ its sense in ver. 11. The above explana- opinion [not ‘judgment, as rendered in tion is that of Cajetan, Estius, De Wette, the Version of the Five Clergymen, which Winer, Meyer, and Wieseler, and puts the is objectionable here, as conveying the very climax in its right order, making it a back- idea which the Apostle wishes tonegative, ward one of comparison. For as Wieseler that of an authoritative decision] in this remarks (Chron. Apost. Zeit. p. 364, note), matter, the stress being on γνώμην, as_ there are three steps in the collection for distinguished from ἐπιταγήν. τοῦτο the saints,—the wishing it (θέλειν), the yap ....] For this (viz. ‘my giving setting about it (ποιῆσαι), and the com- my opinion, and not commanding, —as pletion of it (ἐπιτελέσαι). And the Co- Billroth and Meyer. De Wette con- rinthians had begun not only the second, troverts this, and would make τοῦτο refer, but even the first of these, before the to the proof of their love in the act of Macedonians. Long employed as they charity, contending that τοῦτο must refer had then been in the matter, it was more to the same 85. ἐν τούτῳ. But Meyer creditable to them to receive advice from rightly answers that this need not be, for the Apostle, than command. “θέλειν is ἐν τούτῳ is altogether unemphatic and in- ποῦ a historic act like ποιῆσαι, but a per- significant, and the whole sense of the manent state: hence the pres. inf.’ Meyer. clause is in the words γνώμην δίδωμι) In saying ἀπὸ πέρυσι ‘from last is expedient for you (better than “‘be- year,’ it seems probable that Paul would fitting,’ or “suitable,” as suggested by speak as a Jew, regarding the year as Bloomf. after the Schol. ἁρμόζει, cvvdder. beginning in Tisri. 11.] But (con- This sense of συμφέρει is not found in the — trast of your former zeal with your present N. T., and is very doubtful elsewhere. See need to be reminded of it) now complete Palm and Rost’s Lex.), seeing that you the act itself also (καί can hardly apply to (‘quippe qui;’ οἵτινες is decisive for the the whole τὸ ποι. ἐπιτ., as De Wette, but above meaning of τοῦτο. ‘My giving my must be taken with ποιῆσαι; now shew opinion, rather than commanding, is expe- ποῦ only the completion of a ready will in dient for you, who have already shewn the act begun, but complete the act also,— 682 x Rom, iv. 6 reff. r y Acts xvi. " 11. ver. 19. ch. ix. 2 only τ. Sir. xly. 23 only. (-μος, Rom. i. 15.) 2 constr., Acts ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΊΟΥΣ B. ς : a / / Ἁ ὅπως "καθάπερ ἡ γ᾿ προθυμία * τοῦ θέλειν, οὕτως καὶ τὸ , wn / W ἐπιτελέσαι ὃ ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν. c AG 5Ἂ A d ᾽ 4 ὃ > c alc ὐκ ὙΜ κειται, ° καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχη “ εὐπρόςδεκτος, ov “ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει. a \ a > ’ 13 οὐ yap ἵνα ἄλλοις “ ἄνεσις, ὑμῖν [δὲ] θλῖψις, ἀλλ᾽ 1 ἐξ ᾿ a A A \ ΓΞ - τ 8 ἰσότητος, ἐν τῷ "νῦν ἃ καιρῷ τὸ ὑμῶν ' περίσσευμα * εἰς ΜΗ 12 εἰ yap ἡ ¥ προθυμία ὃ πρό- xiv. 9 reff. [τῇ πὶ “ Ν Ἀν σον ὧν 1 / asm ti. πὸ ἐκείνων ὑστέρημα, 18 ἵνα καὶ τὸ ἐκείνων ' περίσσευμα Ὁ Heb. vi, 18. ’ tee Cte A 1.£ / 74 ΄ ot F_¥: ee : γένηται εἰς TO υμῶν “VOTEPHNMA, OTWS YEVNTAL © LOOT. oer ye ς \ \ 5) 5) t We Lent. xxiv. 15 καθὼς γέγραπται ™ O τὸ πολὺ οὐκ ™ ἐπλεονᾶσεν, καὶ ὁ c here bis. Ἀπ 7 > 0 » ΄ Rom. vii.26. TO Ολύγον οὐκ NNATTOVNGED. tia ‘Levit. ix. 5B. d Rom. xv. 16 reff. e Acts xxiv. 23 reff. f = 1 Cor. vii. 5 reff. g here bis. Col. ἵν. 1 only. Job xxxvi. 29. Zech. iv. 7 only. h Rom. iii. 26 reff. iepp., here bis only. Matt. xii. 34|| LL. Mark viii. 8 only. Eccles. ii. 15 (only ?). k = Rom. iii. 22. Gal. iii. 14. Eph. i. 8. iii. 2. 11 Cor. xvi. 17 reff. m anc constr., Exon. xvi. 18. Winer, edn. 6, ἢ 64. 4. n Rom. v. 20 reff. o here only.1.c. trans., Prov. xiv. 84, 11. for του, το D!. 12. for εαν, αν DIF LN f Chr-ms Damasc. for exn, exer L f [Euthal-ms]. rec adds tis, with ΟΣ], rel [syr-w-ast copt Chr,]: om BC!DFKPN 17 latt [syr-txt] goth eth arm Clem, [Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase Cypr, Ambrst]. (so D[-gr] F [not F-lat] aft exe.) 13. om δε BCR! 17 D-lat eth [Euthal-ms]. 14. (the τ of 1st τὸ is written over the line by N}(appy).) om νυν F[-gr(and G2) ]. euov Κ. 15. om 2nd ὁ Fb οἱ ἢ Καὶ ὁ 47. 80. 93. 106-14-15-22. 238. as Meyer), that, as (there was) (with you) readiness of will, so (there may) also (be) completion according to your means (ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν, not ‘out of that which ye have, as E. V., but ‘ after the measure of your property,’ as in ref. The verbs substantive must be supplied, as in ver. 13). 12.] Explanation of ἐκ Tov €xew,—that on it, προθυμία being pre- supposed, and not on absolute quantity, acceptability depends. For if a willing mind is present,—according to what it may happen to possess, it is acceptable, not according to what it possesseth not. The construction of the sentence is sim- ple enough: προθυμία being the subject throughout, quasi-personified : readiness in God’s service is accepted, if its exertion be commensurate with its means,—and is not measured by an unreasonable require- ment of what it has not. 13—165. | Further explanation that the present col- lection is not intended to press the Co- rinthians καθὸ οὐκ ἔχουσι. For (it is) not (the collection is not made) that there may be to others (the saints at Jerusalem) relief, and to you distress (of poverty): 14. but that by the rule of equality (ἐξ as in ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν, above), at this present time (of their need: the stress is on ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ as suggest- ing that this relation may hereafter be altered) your abundance may subserve (γένηται, see next clause. γίνεσθαι εἰς, ‘to be extended to,’ see ref. Gal.) their deficiency; that also (supposing circum- stances changed) their abundance may subserve your want. The reference is still, as is evident from the next verse, to the supply of temporal wants, in respect of which there should be a mutual relieving and sharing among Christians. But the passage has been curiously misunderstood to mean, ‘that their (the Jewish Chris- tians’) abundance in spiritual things may be imparted to you to supply your de- ficiency” Thus Chrys., al.,—the ancients regarding this imparting as the Gospel- benefit received from them by the Gentiles (which however was past, not future, and is urged as a motive for gratitude, see Rom. xv. 27), and the modern Romanists introducing the monstrous perversion of the attribution of the merits of the saints to others in the next world. So Estius: “ Locus hic apostoli contra nostre etatis heereticos ostendit, posse Christianos minus sanctos meritis sanctorum adjuvari etiam in futuro seculo. Denique notanda virtus eleemosyne, que facit hominem participem *meritorum ejus in quem confertur.” 15.] that there may be equality, as it is written (i.e. according to the expression used in the Scripture history: παράγει παλαιὰν ἱστορίαν, Chrys.,—of the gathering of the manna) He that (gathered) much, did not exceed (the measure prescribed by God) : and he that (gathered) little, did not fall short (of it). The fact of equality being the only point brought into compa- rison as between the Israelites of old and Christians now, it is superfluous to enquire minutely how this equality was wrought among the Israelites. The quotation is according to the reading of the LXX generally supported by MSS.; except that ἔλαττον appears for ὀλίγον in A ὦ secunda manu. Grabe (not F) and the BCDFR LPRab edefg hktmn ο 17, 47 12—19. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 683 16 » Χάρις δὲ τῷ θεῷ τῷ 4 διδόντι τὴν αὐτὴν ᾿ σπουδὴν p= Rom τι ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν “ἐν τῇ κα δίᾳ Τίτου, 17 ὅτι τὴν μὲν ὃ παρά- q constr, John p op ὴν μ ρ “Ano petos “ ἐξῆλθεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. t ἐδέξατο, ΠΥ πΟῸν ΡΎΣΥ os δὲ "ὑπάργων ρ ρχ 18 y ay eee συνεπέμψαμεν O€ μετ ili. 35. ch. i Ms 22. ver. 1. ¥ αὐθαί- Ezra vii. 10 YWVeulgitte a ΕἸ , va ς »" a - αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀδελφόν, ov ὁ 5 ἔπαινος δ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ " 5 ἤν. τα. "πασῶν τῶν ὃ" ἐκκλησιῶν" Ν la) “ χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν v Acts viii. 16 reff. y ver. 22 only +. vii. 17. xiv. 33. ch. xi. 28. e Acts xiv. 23 only +t. o. LiGors xu. a. z Rom. ii. 29 re h ch. iii. 3 reff. 194 οὐ μόνον δέ, © ἐκκλησιῶν ᾽ a g / 7 a h § ῇ ς > ς a ἐν τῇ © χάριτι ταύτῃ τῇ ™ διακονουμένῃ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, w ver. 2 only (reff.). ff. c plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. f Acts xix. 29 only t. t = John iv. 45 ἃ ἀλλὰ καὶ υ ver. 22 (bis). f - at es 2 Tim. i. 17 συνέκδημος ἐάβοὴ only. Ezek. xli. 25. (-ως Luke vii. 4, ἱπρρὸς Phil. ii. 28. Tit. iii. 13.) = but w. εἰς, Acts xi. 25 reff. ἜΤ Ochi ule b1Cor, ἃ Rom. vy, 3. viii. 23 al. (ἐκδημεῖν, ch. v. 6, 8, 9.) ξεν: δὲ i= Acts iii. 10. ‘ch. x. 4.;xi. 8.. 1 Tim.1. 16 al: 16. for διδοντι, δοντι DF LN? 47 syrr [arm] Chr,, dedit vulg D-lat: danti G-lat. C tol! copt add nu. 18. τον adeApov bef μετ αὐτου PR! ὁ [copt]. 19. for lst ἡμων, vuwy ΕἾ -οΥ |(not G). add eyevero D[-gr] b 91.177 arm. rec (for ev) συν, with Ὁ F[not F-lat] KLN rel goth [Clem,] Thdrt Aug: txt BCP dm LG 47 vulg copt eth [arm Euthal-ms] Damase Ambrst Aug Pel. up υμων C b? 1 55. 73. 177. 238. ver to vp’ υμων in next. Aldine edition have @ τὸ πολύ and ᾧ τὸ ὀλίγον, probably a correction. The con- text supplies σύλλέξας from the συνέλεξαν in the preceding verse,—and is presumed by the Apostle to be familiar to his read- ers. 16-- 94.) Of Titus and two other brethren whom Paul had commissioned to complete the collection. 16.] The sense is taken up from ver. 6. διδόντι ἐν, see reff. τὴν αὖτ. om., viz. ‘as in my- self? This is evident from ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. 17.] Proof of this; that Titus received indeed (μέν) Paul’s exhortation to go to them (said, to shew his subordination,— or perhaps to authenticate his authoriza- tion: by the Apostle), but in reality (δέ) was too ready to go, to need any exhortation ; —and therefore went forth (the past tense of the epistolary style——as ‘dabam,’ &c., indicating things which will have passed before the letter is received) of his own accord to them. 18—21.| Commenda- tion of a brother sent with Titus. 18. | ὁ ἀδελφός cannot surely be, as some Com-. mentators (Heumann, Riickert) have un- derstood, ‘ the brother of Titus: the deli- cate nature of the mission would require that there should be at least no family connexion between those sent to fulfil it. This and the other are called in ver. 23, ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν, and were unquestionably Christian brethren in the usual sense. Who this was, we know not. Chrys., Theodoret, Gicum., Luther, Calvin, sup- pose Barnabas to be meant; but there is no historical ground for this, and we can hardly suppose him put under Titus. Baronius and Estius suppose, Silas; to whom this last objection would also apply ; besides that he was well known to the om Ist τη C. homeotel in 17 from ὑφ᾽ υμων in this Corinthians, and therefore would not need this recommendation. Orig., Jerome, τινές in Chrys., Ambrose, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Cajetan, Grot., Olsh., al., suppose Inuke :—and of these all before Grot. (who pointed out the mistake; which however I see reproduced in Mr. Birks’s Hore Apostolic, p. 242 f.) suppose οὗ 6 ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ to refer to his gospel,-—— διὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν ἥνπερ ἔγραψε, Chrys. Hom. Xvill. p. 564 ;—but this is altogether with- out proof, as is the assumption that it was Mark (Lightfoot, Storr). It may have been Trophimus, who (Acts xx. 4) accom- panied Paul into Asia, and (xxi. 29) to Jerusalem: so De Wette, Wieseler. If the expression whose praise in (the matter of) the Gospel is throughout all the Churches, is to be compared with any similar eulogium, that of’ Gaius in Rom. xvi. 23 seems to correspond most nearly : Γάϊος 6 ξένος μου Kat ὅλης τῆς ἐκκλη- σίας : but he was resident at Corinth, see 1 Cor. i. 14. A Gaius, a Macedonian, is mentioned Acts xix. 29, as one of the συνέκδημοι of Paul, as here, together with Aristarchus, which latter we know accom- panied him to Jerusalem (but see below on ch. ix. 4). It must then rest in un- certainty. 19.] parenthetical (see on ver. 20) adding to his general commenda- tion a particular qualification for this office. ov pov. S¢é,—and not only so (i.e. praised in all the churches), but who was also appointed (‘suffragiis designatus,’ see ref. and note; and Stanley here) by the churches (of Macedonia? see ver. 1) as our fellow-traveller (to Jerusalem, from what follows) in (the matter of) this charity which is being ministered by us, 684 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. VIII. 20—24. kw. χὴν τοῦ κυρίου δόξαν καὶ ὃ προθυμίαν ἡμῶν" 359 στελ- ΒΑ iii. 6 λό a / bbc ag oleae ri) n nie a ° Go , TL only wai. λόμενοι τοῦτο, μή τις ἡμᾶς ™ μωμήσηται " ἐν τῇ " ἁδρότη; ll. ὃ. ἣν A Le) ζ Le meh visto. ταύτῃ TH POiaKovouperyn vp ἡμῶν. 21 P προνοοῦμεν yap Ὦ -- im. τ. 10. Ἠεδ. χ. P καλὰ οὐ μόνον Ρ ἐνώπιον κυρίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ὁ ἐνώπιον ο here only t. ς ΄ > -“" Ν > \ (pés, Jen. ἀνθρώπων. 32 συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸν ἀδελφὸν 5. as e a ἃ r 25 , s2 a , t pRom. sii 17 MOV, ὃν " ἐδοκιμάσαμεν * ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις * oTrOU- iii. 4. δαῖον O L δὲ AV ᾿σπουδαιότερον ἃ πεποιθήσει qittisomy. δαῖον ὄντα, νυνὶ δὲ πὸ που ρο ἡ = 2 Cor. iil. aA ΄ lal ς e \ 7, ἃ, Ὶ Ἰϑτοῦς ἃ Cor. πολλῇ τῇ " εἰς ὑμᾶς" *3 Κ εἴτε ὑπὲρ Τίτου, ¥ κοινωνὸς V1. o. ΒΥ 8. 5 ateeo Res FE es ἤτω Woe 2 > epee Meee vie 3 reff ἐμὸς καὶ Y εἰς ὑμᾶς * συνεργός" “ εἴτε ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν, * ἀπό t ver. 17 5 a ΄ a 9 \ 9 Υ uchilsre®, στόλοι ἐκκλησιῶν, » δόξα χριστοῦ. 3" τὴν οὖν “ ἔνδειξιν y= ch. ii. 9, : 12, ix. 8. Gal. v. 10 al. w so 1 Cor. xiii. 8. xv. 11. x ch. i. 8 reff. y | Cor. x. 18, 20 reff. z Rom. xvi. 3 reff. a = John xiii. 16. Phil. ii. 25. (3 Kings xiv.6 A, ἄς. [Β def.]) only. b = 1 Thess. ii. 20. c Rom. iii. 25, 26. Phil. i. 28 only +. rec ins αὐτου bef του κυριου, with D?3[-gr] KX rel syrr Chr Thdrt Damase: αὐτὴν P a 6. 43, 672. 74 [fuld]: om BCD'FL ἃ latt copt goth «th arm [Euthal-ms Ambrst Aug, |. rec (at.end) υμων, with F[-gr] d: txt BCDGKL[P]RX rel latt syrr copt goth [eth arm Chr Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc]. add τελουσιν D!. 20. vrooreAAomeva: F: συστελλ. 93: devitantes latt. 73. for μωμησηται, μωμηται C2(C! uncert). 21. rec mpovoovpevor, with CKL rel copt goth Clem, Chr-ms [Cyr, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase: txt BDFPR f latt syrr arm Chr, [Ambrst Aug, ]. rec om yap, with KL rel Thdrt Damase ΤῊ]: ins BCDFPN mm 17. 47 latt syrr copt goth arm Clem, Chr [Cyr, Euthal-ms Ambrst Aug]. (Meyer thinks mpovoovpevar to have been a mere mistake originally, arising from στελλόμενοι above : and thus the yap which was at first retained from oversight, as in C, was at last erased. Probably προνοουμενοι was introduced from Rom xii. 17, where the same words occur.) om 2nd evwmov &!. 22. vuwy F(not G: so ver. 23). om 7oAAy F[not F-lat] 672-9: pref δε B. vuas F[-gr] bg hmo for eis, προς Καὶ c. 23. cuvepyos bef εἰς vuas Ὁ [Syr]| copt goth Ambrst. dei tol]. —in order to subserve the glory of the Lord and our readiness (this clause refers not to διακον. 5p ju. as usually inter- preted, but to the fact related, the union of this brother with Paul in the matter of the alms, which was done to avoid suspicions detrimental to Christ’s glory, and to the zeal of the Apostle) : 20. | taking heed of this (‘devitantes, Vulg.— ὑποπτεύσαντες κ. δεδοικότες, Theophyl. : —the participle belongs to συνεπέμψαμεν, ver. 19 being parenthetical) that no one blame us (ref.) in the matter of this abundance (of contributions) which is being ministered by us. On ἁδρότης, Meyer observes, “from ἁδρός, ‘ compact,’ “solid ;—is used in Homer (Il. x. 363, π. 857, w. 6) of a firm and succulent habit of body. Later, we have it in all the various references of the adjective, e.g. of abundance—of plants and fruits (Theophr.), of discourse (Diog. Laért. x. 83), of tone (Athen. x. p. 415 a), &e. What kind of abundance is meant, the context therefore alone determines.” Wetst. says, “ἁδρότης apud Zosimum quater pro ingenti largitione.” 21. ] “And such caution is in aceordance with our general practice.’ See reff. Rom. and for xp., κυριου CF [eth : Prov. 22.}| Still less can we determine who this second brother is. Every pos- sible person has been guessed. Several would answer to the description, ‘ whom we have many times in many. matlers proved to be earnest. By our uncer- tainty in these two cases, we may see how much is required, to fill up the apostolic history at all satisfactorily. πεποι- θήσει .. .7 through the great confidence which he has towards you: belongs to σπουδαιότερον, and to the brother, not to συνεπέμψαμεν and to Paul. The brother had, by what he had heard from Titus, conceived a high opinion of the probable success of their mission. 23.] General recommendation of the three. εἴτε ὑπ. Τίτου] Whether concerning Titus (we may supply λέγω or γράφω, or as in E. V., ‘any enquire’ or we need not supply any thing), he is my partner and (especially) my fellow-worker towards you: whether our brethren (be in ques- tion :—viz. the two mentioned—but gene- ralized by the absence of the article— ‘whether [any] brethren of ours’), they are Apostles (in the more general sense of Acts xiv. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 6; Phil. ii. 25) of the churches (i.e. ‘are of the churches, BCDFK LPN ab cdefg hkimn ο 17, 47 ee a a, a ... ΙΧ. 1—3. τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν, καὶ ἡμῶν ἃ αὐτοὺς ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. 685 καυχήσεως ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, εἰς ἃ Rom. τη.» © ἐνδεικνύμενοι Seis ἱπρόξφωπον τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. “τι Romi IX. 1 περὶ & μὲν γὰρ τῆς ὃ" διακονίας τῆς ous ἱπερισσόν μοι ἐστὶν τὸ γράφειν ὑμῖν' tes, i ee a (Gen. 1. 15, ELS TOUS ~ AYt- 17.) constr., 9 δ x wag fe meen ᾿ “ = here(cn. x oLoa yap THV 20) only. see Num. xx. 6. a ἃ e X e A a ἢ K προθυμίαν ὑμῶν ᾿᾿ ἣν ™ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ' καυχῶμαι ™ Μακεδό- ς «οὐ Gor. v.3. σιν, ὅτι ᾿Αχαΐα [? ἐξ] ὑμῶν 4 ζῆλος τἠρέθισεν " τοὺς "πλείονας. ὃ ἔπεμψα δὲ k ch. viii. 11, 12 reff. 1 Cor. xiv. 8. p = ch. viii. 7. see Luke xi. 13. ch. v. 2. s 1 Cor. ix. 19 reff. (not A) &c. m constr., ch. vii. 14. viii. 10 only (ref.). r Col. iii. 21 only. Prov. xix. 7. n here bis. £4. (v of την is written above the line by N! or -corr!.) n , 0 Aare πταρεσκευᾶσται ΟἼΤΟ h xi. 18, ch. viii. 4. καὶ ὁ = Matt. v. 47. ΕΝ xiv. 23. 2 Macc. xii. 44 B,F Prov. xxvii. 1, o ch. q Rom. x. 2 reff. ° πέρυσι 1 constr., ch. xi. 30, Acts x. 10 only. Jer. xii. 3. ὑπερ ἡμων D![-gr] G. rec (for evderxvupevor) ενδειξασθε, with CD? 3K LPN rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr copt arm [zth Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase Ambrst ] : om BCDFKLPNX rel latt syrr copt goth eth arm rec ins καὶ bef εἰς mposwror : gr-lat-ff. Cuap. IX. 1. om yap C 2. 41. 115 arm. yuw (not G). for 6, το BN 17. om εἰ BCP a 17 vulg(and F-lat) Syr copt arm 109 Thdrt-ms Damasc. 2. παραεσκευασται(θαῦ corrd) δὲ. περισυ D? [6] 17. (simly ch viii. 10.) txt B D}(and lat] F[-gr] 17 goth. εμοι Β. om to ( 17. 78 : του F for περυσι, περσυ DIF: [ Euthal-ms ]} Orig-int, Ambrst Pel: .ns D ΕἾ -οῦ ) KL rel fuld eee Chr Thdrt Damasc. 3. ἐπεμψαμεν D-gr arm [demid copt Pel] Aug, what we are of the Lord’—persons sent out with authority), the glory of Christ (i. 6. men whose work tends to Christ’s glory). 24.) Shew then to them the proof of your love (‘to us,’ or perhaps, ‘to your poor brethren’ (Meyer) :—but the word has not been so used throughout this passage, see verse 7: χάρις has been the word), and of our boasting concern- ing you, in the sight of the churches. I may remark, (1) that the participi-l construction is elliptic, as in Rom. xii. 16 al. (2) That mposwrov τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν does not actually import ‘ the representa- tives of the churches,’ as Meyer (which would be τὸ πρόξωπον or τὰ mpdswra, with- out εἰς), but as above, it being implied that they, being the ἀπόστολοι τ. ἐκκλ., are such representatives. And this is all that Theodoret seems to mean, whom Meyer quotes in support of his view :— τὸ mpéswrov yap τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπ- έχουσιν οὗτοι τῶν πεμψασῶν αὐτούς. 1X. 1—5.] He recurs to the collection itself, and prays them that they would make good before the brethren his boast- ing of them, agd prepare it before his own coming. 1.1 The μὲν γάρ connects with the last verse, thus, ‘I beseech you to receive the brethren whom I send, courteously ; for concerning the duty of ministration to the saints, it is surely superfluous for me to write to you who are so prompt already.’ No new subject be- gins, as some have supposed ; nor is there any break in the sense at all. Some ob- security has been introduced unnecessarily, by taking τῆς dian. τ. εἰς τ. ay. for merely this collection which is now making: re the ee chooses such general terms as a mild reproof to the Corinthians, who, well aware as they were of the duty of ministering to the saints, were yet somewhat remiss in this particular example of the duty. There is an emphasis on γράφειν : * nam testes habebitis preesentes,’ Bengel. Theophyl. wellremarks: τοσαῦτα καὶ “πρότερον εἰπὼν καὶ πάλιν μέλλων εἰπεῖν, ὅμως περιττὸν αὐτῷ λέγει τὸ περὶ τούτων γράφειν. σοφῶς δὲ τοῦτο ποιεῖ, ὥςτε μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς ἐπισπάσασθαι. αἰσ- χυνθήσονται γὰρ εἴ γε τοιαύτην ὑπόληψιν περὶ αὐτῶν ἔχοντος τοῦ Παύλου, ὅτι οὐ δέονται συμβουλῆς πρὸς τὸ ἐλεεῖν, εἶτα φανῶσιν ἐλάττους Tis ὑπολήψεως. 2.] For (ground of περισσόν ἐστι) I am aware of your readiness of which (reit.) Iam in the habit of boasting concerning you to Macedonians (Bengel remarks on the pres., ‘adhue erat Paulus in Mace- donia’) that Achaia (not duets—he relates his own words to the Macedonians) h:s been ready (viz. to send off the money: καὶ οὐδὲν λείπει εἰ μὴ τὸ ἐλθεῖν τοὺς δεξομένους τὰ χρήματα, Theophyl. The Apostle, judging by their readiness, had made this boast concerning them, sup- posing it was really so. That this is the sense is shewn by ἀπαρασκευάστους below, ver. 4) from last year (reff.):—and the zeal which proceeds from you (‘ which has its source in you and whose influeuce goes forth from you: so 6 ἐκ Πελοποννήσου πόλεμος, of ἐκεῖθεν, and the like) stirred up the greater number of them (but not only the example of your zeal: see ch. viii. 1). 8.1 But (contrast, not to μέν in ver. 1, but to καυχῶμαι above; 686 t Rom. iv. 2 reff. u Rom. iv. 12 reff. y ch. 1ii, 10 reff. w constr., Acts xxv. 10 reff. x) Cor ix. τ! ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. XI. \ a) / “4 Ἁ Ν t 4 ς A A ς \ ¢ an τοὺς ἀδελφούς, Wa μὴ τὸ tKavynua ἡμῶν TO ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν u On Vv > Vv “Ὁ vy , , ivf θὰ EX, uw κενωθῇ " ἐν ‘TO " μέρει τούτῳ, ἵνα καθὼς ἔλεγον ἣν παρ- ’ Ww 5 4. Χ ΄ Χ 2 Ve, \ » θ \ 4 \ εσκευασμένοι δ᾽ ἦτε, ἘΣ μή ἔπως, ἐὰν ἔλθωσιν σὺν ἐμοὶ Μακε- doves καὶ εὕρωσιν ὑμᾶς " ἀπαρασκευάστους, * καταισχυν- y He only t+. θ ray = Fy ff : xr f . a 5 ae ara { 7 bere ay ὦμεν ἡμεῖς (ἵνα μὴ λέγωμεν ὑμεῖς) ἐν TH * ὑποστάσει » € A 5 ς ΄ , \ hereoniy,? Ταύτῃ. ©” ἀναγκαῖον οὖν “ἃ ἡγησάμην © παρακαλέσαι τοὺς a= ch. αὐ. ͵ rn \ Heb 12 8) si ἀδελφούς, ὃ ἵνα ἱ προέλθωσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ὃ προκαταρτί- , ; / ¢€ n 4 only. Ps. cwow τὴν * Tr poet neh Hay , εὐλογίαν ἐρῶ: ταύτην b Acts xil. 46 ref τς ἑτοίμην etvars οὕτως 1 ὡς ἷ εὐλογίαν καὶ μὴ ws * πλεονεξίαν. 5 2 Maaco. oa 21. d = Acts xxvi. 2 reff. e 1 Cor. i. 10 reff. t Acts xx. 5, 13. .Gen. xxsiii. 14. Ezek. xxxiv. 26. g here only +. 29. xvi. 18. for μων, vuwy B'(see table) eAcyer(appy: but corrd) δὲ}. 4. om πως D! [latt Ambrst Aug, ]. CD F{not F-lat} goth Ambrst Aug [Euthal. ms ]. 21: 21 Cor. iii. 15 reff. om εαν BD? Syr: ay D!. ins ka bef καταισχυνθωμεν D1:2(and lat) L (Syr) arm. : Om wa un Aey. vu. K. rec at end adds της καυχησεως (see ch xi. 17), with D3K LPR? rel i= Rom. xv. (Rom. i. 29 al.) h Rom. i. 2 only +. k = here only. om τὸ ὑπερ vuwy ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat] 45 Chr,. evoovow Ε΄, for λεγωμεν, Aeyw for vues, ἡμεῖς BI syrr goth arm [Chr Thdrt Damasc]: om BCD!FX? 17 latt copt eth [Euthal-ms] Ambrst Aug, Pel. 5. προξελθωσιν F[-gr] 48 Thdrt-ms. {Kuthal-ms] Thdrt Damase ΤῊ] Cc. (P uncert.) for εἰς, προς BDF τὴ: txt CKL® rel rec προκατηγγελμενὴν (0c- casioned probably by προκαταρτ. above), with KL rel Thdrt Damase ec: txt BCDFPX d 17 vulg arm [Euthal-ms] Thl Ambrst Aug Pel. om tavtnv ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat}] arm (Chr). [spec] Pel. Chr-comm, {Ambrst Aug, ]. rel [ Chr Euthal- ms Thdrt Damasc ]. implying fear lest he should have been making a vain boast concerning them) I sent (epistolary past, as in ch. viii. 18, 22) the brethren, in order that our matter of boasting concerning you (καύ- χήμα, our whole ‘ materies gloriandi,’ aot = καύχησις) May not in this particular be proved empty (ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ does not belong to καύχημα, but to κενωθῇ--- ‘that our boast of you, so ample and various—ch. vii. 4, may not break down in this one department.’ Estius, in marg., well calls it ‘acris cum tacita laude exhor- tatio apostolica’); that, as I said (when ? in ver. 2? or, in his boasting to the Mace- donians ἢ or, in 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ? Most naturally, 7n ver. ὦ. If he had meant, to the Macedonians, it would probably have been λέγω. as καυχῶμαι above: if in 1 Cor. xvi., it would have been more clear ly ex- pressed, If so, ἔλεγον refers merely to the word παρεσκ.), ye may be prepared, (see above on ver. 2), 4.| lest per- chance if Macedonians should come with me (to you :—to bring me on my way, or to bear the Macedonian collection. We may infer from this expression, that neither of the two brethren above mentioned, ch. vill. 18, 22, was a Macedonian), and should find you unprepared (with your collection, see ver. 2) we (who have boasted), not to say you (who were boasted of), should be put to shame, in the matter of this om vuwy D}(and lat) vulg om καὶ FN? 52 latt Syr rec (for 2nd ws) wsmep, with b1: txt BCDFKLPX confidence {respecting you. ὑπόστασις, as elsewhere in N.T. and LXX, see reff., subjective: the attempt to give it here the meaning of ‘foundation,’ ‘ matter boasted of,’ as Chrys., Theophyl., Erasm., Grot., al., Riick., Olsh., is unnecessary, and has probably been induced by the gloss τῆς καυχ. inserted from ch. xi. 17: but see there also). 5.] I therefore (because of ver. 4) thought it necessary to exhort the brethren (Titus and the two others) that they would go before (my coming) to you, and pre- viously prepare your long announced beneficence (i. e. long announced by me to the Macedonians, ver. 2. εὐλογία, blessing; not used only of a blessing in words, but of one expressed by a present, as Gen. xxxiii.11; Judg. i. 15. (See Stanley.) But beware of the blunder of connecting it with ed and λογία, ‘a good collection, This sense of Slessing, combined with the primitive sense, affords the Apostle an op- portunity for bringing out the true spirit in which Christian gifts should be given), that this same may be ready (the con- struction is unusual: ταύτην refers back to evA. and the inf. must have ὥςτε sup- plied. De W. compares Heb. v. 5. Per- haps the nearest is Col. iv. 6) in such sort as beneficence, and not as covetousness (i.e. as the fruit of blessing, poured ont from a beneficent mind, not of a sparing BCDFK LPNab edefg hkimn ο 17. 47 4—8, ΠΡῸΣ KOPINGIOTS B. 687 6 Ι nr , ς n 7 , n “ ; ise τοῦτο δέ, ὁ “omeipwy " φειδομένως " φειδομένως Kat 1 see 1 Cor. vi. / e , > / ᾽ ™ θερίσει, καὶ ὁ '" σπείρων 5 ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις “ ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις καὶ '' θερίσει. Ἷ ἕκαστος καθὼς m 1 Cor.ix. ll. Gal. vi. 7. Ρ , T a en 5 7 Ere. 8. 17 pO ταῦ ; ta, nhere bis pone” 1 por’ only +. (-vos, \ ’ f x r 5 r ᾿Ξ ͵ A Ἐν ; x \ t / Job a ; μὴ "ἐκ λύπης ἢ VEE τ ἀνάγκης" “ιχαρὸν yap δότην Πρ γ᾿ <8 a, (ἃ nye ς \ n ‘ / ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός. 8" δυνατεῖ δὲ ὁ θεὸς πᾶσαν Y χάριν ™ περισ- q = 1 Cor. vii. 5 reff. xii, 8.) v Acts xi. 23 reff. r Heb. vii. 12 only. 't here only.'1. c. only, w trans., ch. iv, 15. p here only. Prov, xxi. 25 al. shere only. Prov. xxii.8. (-ότης, Rom. u Rom. xiy. 4. ch. xiii. 3 only +. Eph. i. 8. 1 Thess. iii. 12 only f. 6. for Ist ew evAoyiats, ev evdoyia in benedictione D'[and lat] F[(not F-lat) spec] fuld copt goth Orig-int,[ (txt Orig,) Ambrst Aug, ]. for 2nd em eva., εἰ evAoyias D}(and lat) fuld goth Orig-int,[(txt Orig,) Ambrst] Cypr,: em evaoyia F(not F-lat) copt Aug. om [last] καὶ D)[-gr | eth. 7. ree προαιρεῖται, with D[-gr] KL rel Chr, [Euthal-ms Antch,] Thdrt Damasc,: txt BC(FP)& (17) Chr-ms(Wtst) (προειρεται ΕἾ, προειρητ. ΕΠ 17: mponpit. P): proposuit [D-lat spec Cypr, Aug,, destinavit vulg F-lat, propositum habet Jer, |. 8. rec δυνατος (see notes), with C2D?3KLP rel [Chr] Thdrt Damase [ potens est latt(not G-lat) Ambrst Aug,]: txt BC! D!FR. tol Syr. covetous spirit which gives no more than it need. There is no need to alter the primi- tive meaning, or to make the word signify ‘ tenacity,’ as Calv., De Wette, al.: he who defrauds the poor by stinting them πλεον- εκτεῖ, in the literal sense. Still less must we with Chrys., al., refer πλεονεξ. to the Apostle,—uy νομίσητε, φησίν, ὅτι ὡς πλεον- εκτοῦντες αὐτὴν λαμβάνομεν, Hom. xix. p- 573,—which is inconsistent with the interpretation φειδομένως below, and with εὐλογίαν, the corresponding word, which applies to the spirit of the givers). 6,7.] He enforces the last words by an as- surance grounded in Scripture and partly cited from it, that as we sow, so shall we reap. τοῦτο] Some supply φημί, as in ref.: others, as Meyer, would take it as an accus. absol., ‘as regards this, viz. what has gone before. But I would rather take it as an imperfect construction, in which τοῦτο is used merely to point at the sentiment which is about to follow :—But this—(is true), or But (notice) this . ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις) with blessings: ἐπί denoting the accompanying state or cir- cumstances, as in ref.: not, ‘ with a view to blessings, which will not suit the second ἐπ᾽ evA.: nor as Theophyl., Gc., and E.V. μετὰ δαψιλείας, bountifully: which gives indeed the sense, but misses the meaning of the expression : see above. It refers to the spirit of the giver, who must be iAapds dé7ns, not giving murmuringly,.but wth blessings, with a beneficent charitable spirit: such an one shall reap also with blessings, abundant and unspeakable. The only change of meaning in the second use of the expression is that the evAoyia are poured on him, whereas in the first they proceeded from him: in both cases they are the element in which he works. So, we bestow the seed, but receive the harvest. for δε, yap D}[-gr] 109-78 demid The spirit with which we sow, is of our- selves: that with which we reap, depends on the harvest. So that the change of meaning is not arbitrary, but dependent on the nature of things. 7. | Not, as Meyer and De W., a limitation of the foregoing, or else it would be expressed by some con- necting particle,—but a continuation of the thought :--- φειδομένως and ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαιν referred to the spirit of the giver ; so does this verse,—éx λύπης ἢ ἐξ av. correspond- ing to φειδομένως, --ἰλαρός, to ἐπ᾽ εὐλο- γίαις. καθὼς προήρηται] as he hath determined in his heart; supply, ‘ so let him give:’ i.e. let the προαίρεσις, the full consent of the free will, go with the gift ; let it not be a reluctant offering, given ἐκ λύπης, out of an annoyed and troubled mind at having the gift extorted, nor ἐξ ἀνάγκης, out of necessity,—because com- pelled. Such givers,—that is implied,— God does not love. δότης is not a clas- sical word. δότηρ, δωτήρ and (Hes. Op. 353) déTns, are used (Meyer). 8 — 11.] He encourages them to a cheerful contribution by the assurance that God both can (vv. 8, 9), and will (vv. 10, 11) Surnish them with the means of perform- ing such deeds of beneficence. 8. ] δυνατεῖ has the emphasis. I adopt the reading because after all it is difficult to imagine how so easy a construction as δυνατὸς 6 θεός, should have been altered to δυνατεῖ, as Meyer supposes, or why the transcriber need have written δυνατός ἐστιν if the latter were a correction for δυνατεῖ, seeing that the verb substantive is just as frequently omitted in such clauses: as inserted. πᾶσαν χάριν, ‘etiam in bonis externis,’ Bengel, —to which here the reference is: not excluding however the. wider meaning of ‘ αἰΐ grace.’ περισ- σεῦσαι, to make to abound,—reff. 688 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. IX, x = ch. ii, 9,12. σεῦσαι * εἰς ὑμᾶς, ἵνα " ἐν Υ παντὶ πάντοτε SAO al. % y ch. iv. 8 reff. Ζ 7 a yrds πᾶσαν " αὐτάρ- κειαν ἔχοντες Ὁ περισσεύητε ὃ εἰς πᾶν “ ἔργον ee ene 9 καθὼς γέγραπται Δ᾽ σκόρπισεν, ἔδωκεν τοῖς “ πένησιν, τα, (κῆρ, ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ ἴἽ μένει ἶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 10 ὁ δὲ 8 ἐπι- -κεῖν, Deut χορηγῶν σπέρμα τῷ ἱ σπείροντι Kat ἄρτον εἰς * βρῶσιν Εἰ pe ' χορηγήσει καὶ ™ πληθυνεῖ τὸν ; σπόρον ὑμῶν καὶ ° αὐξήσει seh is apy TA Ρ γενήματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὑμῶν. 114 ἐν 4 παντὶ " πλου- si aeonig. Τ τιζόμενοι εἰς "πᾶσαν ‘amdoTnTa, " ἥτις ᾽ κατεργάζεται Ov 2 Kings xxii > / a a 7 a ἡ εὐχαριστίαν τῷ θεῷ, 13 ὅτι ἡ * διακονία τῆς Y λει- f John viii. 35 bis. xii. 34. Heb. vii. 24. 165 Ῥελ ΟΣ, ῶ i ἡμῶν e here only. l.c. Exod. xxiii. 6 al. fr. 1 phe: i. 25, from Isa. xl. 8. 1 John ii. 17 only. g Gal. iii.5. Col. 11. 19. 2 Pet. i.5,llonly+. Sir. xxv. 22 only. ( -γία, Eph. iv. 16. Phil. i. 19.) iver. 6. Isa. lv. 10. k Rom, xiv. 17 reff. Isa. l. ec. 11 Pet. iv. ll only. 3 Kingsiv.7. Sir. xxxix. 33. m Acts vi. 7 reff, nepp., here only. Mark ιν. 26, 27. Luke viii. 5,11 only. Deut. xi. 10. o trans., 1 Cor. iii. 6,7 reff. p (yevv.) Matt. iii. 7 || L. xii. 34. xxiii. 33. xxvi. 29 || Mk. L. Luke xii. 18 only. rch. vi. 10. 1 Cor. i. 5 only. t Rom. xii. 8 reff. x Acts vi. 1 reff. Deut. xiv. 22. Hosea x. 12. ch. iv. Gen. xiv. 23 al. participial constr., Acts xxiv. 10 reff. Ὁ — Acts x. 41 reff. v = Rom. iv. 15 reff. y Lukei. 23. Phil. ii. 17,30. Heb. viii. 6. ix. 21 8 reff. 8 = Acts xx. 19 reff. w = Acts xxiv. 3 reff. only. Num. viii. 22. om παντοτε F(not F-lat) 7. 9. at end ins Tov a:wvos FK 238 vulg(not am demid [fuld]) eth. 10. for σπερμα, σπορον (corrn from σπορον below) BD'F. σπειραντι Lm 47. rec χορηγῆσαι πληθυναι αὐξησαι (prob, as Meyer, corrns, in the idea that a wish was intended, and so the futures have been changed to optatives: for such they are, not infinitives: ef 1 Thess iii. 11,12; 2 Thess ii. 17; ili. 5,—and var readd, Rom xvi. 20), with D'{-gr| KX rel syr goth Chr [Cyr, Ἴ Thart Damase: χορηγῆσαι and πληθυναι F[-gr]: χορηγησαι and αὐξησαι L: txt BCDIPN! mn 17 [latt] copt eth arm [ Euthal-ms ] Cypr, Ambrst Aug). rec yevvnuata, with ο k: txt BODFKLPR® rel Chr-mss [ Cyr, Euthal-ms ]. 11. ins wa bef εν παντι F Chr,{(and-2 119-20 syr-mg Damase. ἵνα x.7.A.] in order that, having at all times in every thing all sufficiency (of worldly substance ; αὐτάρκ. is objective ; not contentedness, subj.) ye may abound towards (‘ have an overplus for ;? which is not inconsistent with αὐτάρκεια, seeing that adr. does not exclude the having more, but only the having less than is sufficient: the idea of a man’s having at all times and in all things a sufficiency, would presuppose that he had somewhat to spare) every good work: 9.] as it is written (i.e. fulfilling the cha- racter described in Scripture),—He scat- tered abroad (metaph. from seed: μετὰ δαψιλείας ἔδωκε, Chrys.), he gave to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. In what sense is δικαιοσύνη used ? Clearly in the only one warranted ‘by the context—that of ‘goodness proved by be- neficence, —‘ a righteous deed, which shall not be forgotten,—as a sign of righteous- ness in character and. conduct.’ To build any inference from the text inconsistent with the great truths respecting δικαιοσύνη ever insisted on by P Paul (as Chrys., p. 574, καὶ yap δικαίους ποιεῖ (n φιλανθρωπία), τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καθάπερ πῦρ ἀναλίσκουσα, ὕταν μετὰ δαψιλείας ἐκχέηται) is ἃ manifest perversion. 10.] Assurance that God will do this. But (introduces the new as- -mss) Aug, ]. tor Tw 6., θεου B: om tw DI. vuwy C2P 662-7. 71-4. 91. surance) He that ministers seed to the sower and bread for eating (in the phy- sical world :—from ref. Isa., LXX. The Vulg., E. V., Luther, Calv., Grot., al., commit the mistake of joining κ. ἄρτον eis βρῶσιν with xopnynoa, or -ει. βρῶσις, the act of eating: not = βρῶμα), shall supply and multiply your seed (i.e. the money for you to bestow,—answer- ing to σπέρμα τῷ σπείροντι), and will increase the fruits of your righteous- ness (from ref. Hos.—the everlasting re- ward for your bestowals in Christ’s name, as Matt. x. 42;—answering to ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν, which is the result of the sower’s labours). 11.1 Method in which you will be thus blessed by God. In every thing being enriched (the construction is an anacoluthon, as in ref. and in ch. i. 7 al.: nothing need be supplied) unto all liberality (i.e. in order that you may shew all liberality. On ama. see note, Rom. xii. 8), which (of a sort which) brings about by our means (as the dis- tributors of it) thanksgiving (from those who will receive it) to God. 12. | Explanation of the last clause. Because the ministration (not on ow part who distribute, though it might at first sight seem so: the next verse decides διακονία to mean, ‘your administering by contribu- BCDFK LPN ab cdefg hkimn o 17. 47 OO a ee 9---Ἰῦ, ΠΡΟΣ KOPINGIOTS B. 059 , \ rf Ν τουργίας ταύτης οὐ μόνον " ἐστὶν ἃ προςαναπληροῦσα TA zconstr., ser b ΄ 7 “ c ς , ᾽ \ \ d / 5 \ ὑστερήματα τῶν °ayl@Vv, ἀλλὰ καὶ “ περισσεύουσα διὰ Acts il. 5 reff. ach. xi. 9 only +. Wisd. only. nr A n an \ ral ΄-“ -“ xix. 4 y πολλῶν " εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ θεῷ" 1 διὰ τῆς “ δοκιμῆς τῆς v1Cor. νὴ : 7ὕ \ \ Nie in ς a See * διακονίας ταύτης ! δοξάζοντες τὸν θεὸν ' ἐπὶ τῇ 8 ὑποταγῇ © Acts ix 13 a h e / e lal i » A ’ / na τῆς "ομολογίας ὑμῶν ' εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ ἁπλότητι τῆς , 14 \ > a ὃ ΄ ς \ ς al Ὦ 2 θ Ve πάντας, 13 καὶ αὐτῶν δεήσει ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν " ἐπιποθούντων an 4 lal “ Free la ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν 5 ὑπερβάλλουσαν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν. 15 Ud A A q 3 \ aay > , ’ As A Ρ χάρις τῷ θεῷ Vert τῇ " ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ αὐτοῦ " δωρεᾷ. h (=) 1 Tim. vi. 12,13. Heb. iii. 1. iv.14. x. 23 only. Ῥ.ΗῚΣ Ἂς : i == Acts xx. 21. j ver. 11 m 1 Cor. xvi. 1 reff. exviii. 174. q so ver. 13 reff. 25. 2 Mace. iv. 30 only. o eh. iii. 10 reff. r here only +. n Rom. i. 11 reff. James iv. 5. constr., Phil. i.8, ii. 26. - ἃ Acts xvi. 5 reff. e Rom. v.4 reff. > -- ΕἸ κοινωνίας '™ εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ ™ εἰς f Luke ii. 20. Acts iv. 21. participial constr., ver. ll al. g Gal. ii. δ. 1 Tim. ii. 11. 111. 4 only +. (-τάσσειν, Rom. x. 3.) (Deut. xii. 17.) gen. of reference, Rom. vii. 2 reff. k Rom. xv. 26 reff. ἘΡΉΠ τ a. Wet. το ἢ Ὁ Ῥο, 1 Cor. xv. 57. ch. ii. 14. viii. 16. Acts 1i. 38 al.t Wisd. vii. 14 xvi. p Rom. vi. 17. vii. 25. s John iv. 10. (Dan. ii. 6. y. 17 Theod.) 12. for θεω, χριστω B 46: in Domino vulg [F-lat]. 13. ins καὶ bef δια B. εαυτ. P. 14. for ὑμων, nuwy B &}(but with v written above) Γιμὼων F-gr(not G)]. vuas ins Louw δὲβ [ Ambrst, pref ev 17 |. aft 15. rec aft xapis ins δε, with C? D*-3[-gr] KLPX$rel [syrr copt arm Chr, Euthal- ms] Ambrst Sedul: om BC!D!FX! a 17 latt goth Aug, Pel Bede. tion,’ as in ver. 1) of this public service (Aer. here seems to approach more nearly to its proper sense, serving the public by furnishing the means of outfit for some necessary purpose) not only serves the end of supplying by its help the wants of the saints, but of abounding (περισσ. may be transitive as in ver. 8, not only filling up, but ‘ causing to overflow,’ what were ὕστερήματα. But the usual intran- sitive sense is preferable. The emphasis is ON mposavamA. and περισσεύουσα) by means of many thanksgivings to God (τῷ θεῷ with edyxap., as in ver. 11, not with περισσεύουσα, which would not, as Meyer observes, give the sense of abound- ing towards God,—this would be εἰς τ. θεόν, see Rom. v. 15, or eis τ. δόξαν τ. θεοῦ, as in ch. iv. 15,—but the objection- able one of περισσεύει μοί τι, as John vi. 13; Luke ix. 17) ; 18.1 they (the recipients) glorifying God (the participle as in ver. 11, an anacoluthon) by means of (the proof, &c., is the occasion, by means of which) the proof (i. e. the tried reality -——the substantial help yielded by) of this (your) ministration, for the subjection of your confession as regards the Gospel of Christ (i. 6. that your ὁμολογία, ( = * you who confess Christ,’) ‘is really and truly subject in holy obedience, as regards the gospel of Christ.’ But eis must not be joined with ὑποταγῇ, as ‘ obedience to,’ or (E. V.) ‘subjectzon unto, —which is un- exampled, and would more naturally have the art., τῇ eis: it is towards, ‘ in refer- ence to,’ as in ref.) and liberality of your contribution as regards them and as re- gards all men (the same remarks apply to Vou. IT. eis asabove). Meyer would renderamAdrnre τῆς κοινωνίας, ‘the genuineness of your fellowship :’ but see note on Rom. xii. 8, and Rom. xv. 26. He also makes τῇ ὑὕπο- ταγῇ τῆς ὅμολ., ‘your subjection to your confession,’ which perhaps may be, but disturbs the parallel of ἁπλότητι τ. κοιν. 14] The construction is very difti- cult. δεήσει may depend on περισσεύουσα, ver. 12 (but then we should expect διά as there),—or on δοξάζοντες (but then it should also depend on éri—and they could not be said to glorify God for their own prayers. If on δοξάζοντες as the instru- ment whereby, it seems strange that αὐτῶν should be expressed), or αὐτῶν δεήσει ὑπὲρ bu. ἐπιπ. bu. may be (as Meyer) a gen. absol., ‘while they desire you in prayers for you’ (but this, seems forced, and as De W. observes, would require τῇ either before or after δεήσει). In thie midst of these difficulties I see no way but this: the datives preceding, ὑποταγῇ and ἁπλότητι, have occasioned this also to be expressed in the dative, as thongh it depended on ἐπέ, whereas it is in reality parallel with διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν and dependent on περισσεύουσα. Again, the words in another point of view are pa- rallel with τῇ ὑποταγῇ and ἁπλότητι, inasmuch as these are ὑμῶν, and this δέησις is αὐτῶν. Amidst such compli- cated antitheses and attracted construc- tions, it may suffice if we discover thie clue to the original formation of the sentence: the meaning is obvious enough, viz. that glory also accrues to God by the prayers of the recipients, who are moved with the desire. of Christian love ¥ ¥ 690 t Rom. xii. 1 reff. u | Cor. iv. 21 reff. v Acts xxiv. 4 (reff.) only +. wver.7. Luke i. 31. Acts ili. 13. 2 Chron. xiii. 8. a constr.,1 Cor. iv. 6. x Rom. xii. 16 reff. Phil. ii. 6. Cuap. X. 1. rec mpaornros, with CDKLN?3 rel: txt BFP! 17.. for εἰς umas, ev υμιν P [in vobis latt]. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. Winer, edn. 6, 3 44. 3. ὃ. X. rT > \ Δ": \ la a “ X. 1 Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς "διὰ lol ΝΑ . \ a a τῆς “mpaitynTos καὶ Y ἐπιεικείας τοῦ χριστοῦ, ὃς “ κατὰ τῇ 4 \ x Ν > Ὁ “ y ? \ δὲ Ζ θ 9 δ δὰ ? πρόςωπον μὲν * ταπεινὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, Υ ἀπὼν δὲ 5 θαῤῥῶ εἰς ξ δον δ ὃ , ὃ \ a \ \ y \ Ζ θ γε. a b ὑμᾶς" 3 δέομαι δὲ ὃ τὸ μὴ Y παρὼν * θαῤῥῆσαι τῇ ὃ πεποι- y 1 Cor. ν. 3 reff. zch. vy. 6, 8 reff. Ὁ ch, i. 15 reff. for εἰς, δι᾽ B. 2. aft τη πεποιθησει ins Tavtn C*(hence to orAa της, ver 4, C is rewritten) copt. (reff-) to you, on account of the grace of God which abounds eminently to- wards (over) you (ἐφ᾽ tp. belonging to ὕπερβ. not to χάριν, which would, but not of absolute necessity, require τήν). 15.] Having entered, in the three last verses, deeply into the thankful spirit which would be produced in these recipients of the bounty of the Corinthians, he concludes with an ascription, in the spirit also of a thankful recipient, of un- feigned thanks to Him, who hath enriched us by the gift of His only Son, which brings with it that of all things else (Rom. viii. 32), and is, in all its wonders of grace and riches of mercy, truly ineffable, ἀνεκδιήγη- τος. [Ὁ 15 impossible to apply such a term, so emphatically placed as here, to any gift short of THAT ONE. And the ascription, as coming from Paul’s fervent spirit, is very natural in this connexion. This interpre- tation is preferred by Chrys. Hom. xx. p. 579 f. (δωρεὰν δὲ ἐνταῦθα λέγει καὶ τὰ τοσαῦτα ἀγαθὰ τὰ διὰ τῆς ἐλεημοσύνης γινόμενα καὶ τοῖς λαμβάνουσι καὶ τοῖς παρέχουσιν" ἢ τὰ ἀπόῤῥητα ἀγαθὰ τὰ διὰ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ πάσῃ μετὰ πολλῆς δωρηθέντα τῆς φιλοτιμίας" ὃ καὶ μάλιστά ἐστιν ὑποπτεῦσαι. ἵνα γὰρ καὶ καταστείλῃ, καὶ δαψιλεστέρους ἐργάσηται, ὧν ἔτυχον παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτων αὐτοὺς ἀναμιμνήσκει. καὶ γὰρ μέγιστον τοῦτο εἰς προτρυπὴν ἀρετῆς ἁπάσης' διὸ καὶ ἐν- ταῦθα τὸν λόγον κατέκλεισεν), and Thi. (who, after beginning as Chrys., proceeds: n Kal τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀναμιμνήσκει ὧν ἠξιώ- θημεν διὰ τῆς σαρκώσεως τοῦ χριστοῦ, @savel τοιαῦτα λέγων Μηδὲν» μέγα νομί- oOnTe ὑμεῖς ποιεῖν." ἀνεκδιήγητα γάρ εἶσι τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἃ ἐλάβομεν παρὰ θεοῦ καὶ εἰ ὀλίγα καὶ φθαρτὰ δῶμεν, τί μέγα;) It is also given by Bengel (“ Deus nobis dedit abundantiam bonorum internorum et ex- ternorum, que et ipsa est inenarrabilis, et fructus habet consimiles”’), Meyer, al. The other explanation (see Chrys. above) is that of Calv., Grot., Est., al. Cuap. X. 1—XIII. 18.] Turrp Part OF THE EPISTLE. DEFENCE OF HIS APOS- TOLIC DIGNITY, AND LABOURS, AND SUF- FERINGS, AGAINST HIS ADVERSARIES: WITH ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS INTENDED COURSE TOWARDS THEM ON HIS ENSUING VISIT. X. 1—6.] He assures them of the spiritual nature, and power, of his apostolic office: and prays them not to make it necessary for him to use such au- thority against his traducers at his coming. 1.1 δέ marks the transition toa new subject,—and αὐτός points on to the personal characteristics mentioned below, ‘ Ego idem Paulus, qui . . . ;? the words ἐγὼ Παῦλος setting his Apostolic dignity in contrast with the depreciation which fol- lows. Sometimes however we have αὐτός used, where the only object seems to be to bring out the personality more strongly : so 1 Thess. iii. 11; iv. 16; v.23; 2 Thess. ii. 16; iii. 16. See also Rom. vii. 25: and ch. xii. 13 :—and such may be the case here:—but the és rather favours the former interpretation. διὰ τ. πρ. κ. ἔπ.7 as in Rom. xii. 1, using the meekness and gentleness of Christ (Matt. xi. 29, 30) as a motive whereby he conjures them. And most: appropriately: he beseeches them by the gentleness of Christ, not to compel him to use towards them a method of treatinent so alien from that gentleness : “Remember how gentle my Master was, and force not me His servant to be other- wise towards you.” ** πραὔτης, lenitas, virtus magis absoluta: ἐπιείκεια, equitas, magis refertur ad alios,’” Bengel. See many examples in Wetst. ὃς κατὰ πρός.) Who in personal appearance in- deed (am) mean among you (he appro- priates concessively, but at the same time with some irony,—so Chrys. Hom. xxi. p. 583, κατ᾽ εἰρωνείαν φησί, τὰ ἐκείνων φθεγ- yéuevos,—the imputation by which his adversaries strove to lessen the weight of his letters. κατὰ mp. is not a Hebraism: Wetst. quotes several instances of its usage by Polybius), but when absent am bold (severe, outspoken in blame) towards you; 2.1 but (however this may be, assuming this character of me to be true or not, as you please ;—or, not- withstanding that I may have been hitherto ταπεινός among you) I pray (you) (not, God, as Bengel (1), al.) that I may not (τὸ μή sets the object of δέομαι in a stronger light, see reff.) when present (‘as I intend to be :᾿---- at my next visit’) have to be beld (see above) with the con- BCDFK LPNab cedefg hkimn 017.47 1---Ο. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 691 7 ? fal θήσει 7) ° λογίζομαι ἃ τολμῆσαι ἐπί τινας τοὺς ° λογιζομέ- «- here only. νους ἡμᾶς “ ὡς ἴξ κατὰ ®% σάρκα περιπατοῦντας. h σαρκὶ γὰρ ' περιπατοῦντες οὐ ὃ κατὰ ὃ σάρκα 1 στρατευό- μεθα: * τὰ yap " ὅπλα τῆς ' στρατείας ἡμῶν οὐ ™ σαρκικά, ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ "τῷ θεῷ “ πρὸς Ῥ καθαίρεσιν 4“ ὀχυρωμάτων' ὅ τλογισμοὺς " καθαιροῦντες καὶ πᾶν "ὕψωμα " ἐπαιρόμε- Kings XVill, 25, λογιζόμενοι ἥξειν ἅμα ἡλίῳ δύνον- 95." ἐν e Rom. Vili. 36. \ - , ν nr a \ w 5 ͵ 1 Cor. iv. Ll. νον κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως " τοῦ θεοῦ, Kat * αὐχμαλωτίζον- 1 Or ir} n x , ’ \ y ς \ a ~ 6 \ f Rom. viii. 4. TES πᾶν VOHMA ELS Τὴν UTTAKONV TOU χριστου, Kal ε Rom. 1.9 h = Gal. ii. 206. Phil. i. 22, 24. Col. ii.1. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Philem. 16. i ch. iv. 2 reff. j 1 Cor. ix. 7 reff. k = ch. vi. 7 (reff.). 11 Tim. i. 18 only +t. m 1 Cor, iii. 3 reff. n dat., Acts vii. 20 reff. o = ch. viii. 19 reff. p ver. 8 reff. q here only. Proy. xxi. 22. 1 Mace. v. 65. τ Rom. ii. 15 only. Prov. vi. 18. Jer. xi. 19. s= Acts xix. 27. Lam. ii. 2. τ Rom. viii. 39 only. Job xxiv. 24. Judith x. 8. xiii. 4 only. u=ch.xi.20. Ezraiv.19. Dan. xi. 14 Theod. v gen. object., ch. ii. 14. w Rom. vii. 23 reff. x ch. ii. 11 reff. om τινας C?, 3. περιπατουντας Ε΄. y and constr., Rom. i. 5 reff. 4. στρατιας (for -e.as) [B'?(Tischdf)] CDFKLPS e 11 m n 47: txt B[-corr(appy, Tischdf] 17. 5. καθαιρουντων D! Orig,[? ]{and int, : txt,) Meth,. at end ins αγοντες 1) ΕἸ ηοῦ F-lat] goth. D-lat spec }. fidence (official peremptoriness, and re- liance on my authority) with which I reckon (am minded: not passive, ‘am reckoned, as Vulg., Luther, Beza, Estius, Bengel, al., which, as Meyer remarks, would naturally require ἀπών with τολμῆ- σαι) to be bold towards [against] some, (namely) those who reckon (of) us as walking according to the flesh (περιπα- τεῖν κατὰ σάρκα is well explained by Kstius, ‘hoc est, secundum carnales et humanos affectus vitam et actiones in- stituere Putabant enim Paulum, quando presens erat, sive captande gratiz causa, sive quod timeret offendere, vel simili affectu humano prohibitum fuisse, ne potestatem exerceret, quam absens per literas venditabat’). 8.1] The yap here shews that this verse is not the refutation of the charge κατὰ σάρκα περιπατεῖν, but a reason rendered for the δέομαι above ; and ἐν σαρκί and κατὰ σάρκα allude only to the charge just mentioned. This indeed is shewn by the use, and enlargement in vv. 46, of στρατευόμεθα, instead of περι- πατοῦμεν :—they who accuse us of walking after the flesh, shall find that we do not war after the flesh: therefore compel us not to use our weapons. ἐν gap. γ. περιπ.} Although we walk in the flesh, i. e. are found in the body,—yet we do not take our apostolic weapons from the flesh —do not make its rule our rule of warfare. 4.| Enlargement of the idea in στρατευόμεθα. If the warfare were ac- cording to the flesh, its weapons would be carnal ; whereas now, as implied, they are spiritual, δυνατὰ τῷ Oe¢,—powerful in the sight of God (i.e. ‘in His estimation,’ ‘after His rule of warfare. It is nota Hebraism ; see on ref. Acts; and for the ᾿ 4 om 2nd και ΕἾ (not F-lat) dat., Winer, edn. 6, § 31.4. Some ren- der it, ‘dy means of God, —Beza, Grot., Estius, Bengel, 4]. : others, ‘for God, — God’s means of shewing his power,—Bill- roth, al., but wrongly) in order to pulling down of strongholds (see ref. Prov. So Philo de Abrah. ὃ 38, vol. 11. p. 32, τὸν ἐπιτειχισμὸν τῶν ἐναντίων δοξῶν καθαιρεῖν, —see also de Confus. ling. § 26, vol. i. p- 424. Cf. Stanley: who thinks that recollections of the Mithridatic- and piratical wars may have contributed to this imagery. The second of these, not more than sixty years before the Apos- tle’s birth, and in the very scene of his earlier years, was ended by the reduction of 120 strongholds, and the capture of more than 10,000 prisoners). 5.] The nom. καθαιροῦντες refers to ἡμεῖς, the implied subject of ver. 4;—this verse carrying on the figure in ὀχυρωμάτων. By λογισμούς he means, as Chrys., p. 585, τὸν τῦφον τὸν Ἑλληνικόν, καὶ τῶν συφισμάτων κ. τῶν συλλογισμῶν τὴν ἰσχύν :-ὀυυὖ not only these :—every towering conceit κατὰ σάρκα is also included. K. πᾶν UW. | And every lofty edifice (fortress or tower) which is being raised (or, raising itself) against the knowledge of God (i.e. the true knowledge of Him in the Gospel; not subjective here, but taken objectively, the comparata being human knowledge, as lifted up against the know- ledge of God, i.e. the Gospel itself), and leading captive every intent of the mind (not ‘ thought, as E. V.: not i- tellectual subjection here, but that of tbe will, is intended) into subjection to Christ (in the figure he treats 7 ὑπακοὴ τ. χριστοῦ, the new state into which the will is brought by its subjection, as the country into which ¥ 2 692 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. X vhere only. 7 ἐν ὅ ἑτοίμῳ 5 ἔχοντες ὃ ἐκδικῆσαι πᾶσαν ὃ παρακοήν, ὅταν BCDFK ὁ [ως ἔχειν ς πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν ἡ ἃ ὑπακοή. c ἄντα Jet) ag 1 Τὰ “κατὰ "πρόςωπον βλέπετε; εἴ tis “ποηοιθὲν οἸΤΗ͂Σ reff. ς a g a > ‘ Ὁ Rom. vy. 19. EAaUTW χρίστου ELL al, Heb. ii. 2 τοῦτο "' λογιζέσθω ‘madkw jad’ wt ἑαυτοῦ, " ὅτι καθὼς αὐτὸς χριστοῦ, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς. 9... ΄ cS Ul , / myer 8 ἐάν * [τε] " γὰρ "ἢ περισσότερόν ™ τι καυχήσωμαι περὶ c = John iii. 29, al. fr. Dan. vili. 23. t dat., Phil. i. 14. Philem. 21. Prov. xiv. 16. h constr., Rom. ii. 3 reff. i = 1 Gor. xii. 21. Ἰ ch. ii. 7 reff. m Luke xii. 4 only. 6. for ev ετοίμω, ετοιμως D! Orig,. d w. gen. subj., Kom. v. 19, xv. 18. xvi. 19 al. Isa. xxviii. 17, inf., Rom. ii. 19. e ver. 1. f constr. g = 1.Cor. i, 12. iti. 23. j ch. iii. 5 reff. k = Rom. i, 26. vii. 7. aft mAnpw6n ins προτερον C 39 fri Aug,. 1 ἢ ὑπακοὴ bef vuwy D} 3 ΕΓ (not F-lat) Ambrst Aug].—yuev D! F(not G). 1%. for πεποιθεν, δοκει πεποιθεναι B. ms. παλιν bef λογιζεσθω P [a]. intra G-lat. aft χριστου ins δουλος DF flor fuld Ambrst- for ad, ep BLN; apud vulg D-lat F-lat ; rec aft nue:s ins xpiorov, with D3[-gr] KL rel copt-wilk Damase Kc: om BCD!FPR 17 latt syrr goth eth arm Chr [ Euthal-ms] Thdrt ΤῺ] Ambrst Pei. 8. om te BF ἃ 17 [arm] Chr ΤῊ]: ins CDKLPR® rel [syr eth] Thdrt Damasc Ambrst. rec ins καὶ bef περισσοτερον, with D%[-gr] KL rel Syr syr-mg Chr Thdrt Damasc: om BCD!FPR! ¢ latt copt goth eth arm [Euthal-ms Ambrst]. τι bef περισσ. ΕΓ (μοῦ F-lat) D-lat] Ambrst Vig, : om 7: m! arm Sedul. LPN ecfk Thi: -σωμεθα 17. it is led captive: compare Luke xxi. 24). 6.1 But perhaps some will not thus be subjected. In that case we are ready to inflict punishment on them: but not till every opportunity has been given them to join the ranks of the obedient ; when your obedience (stress on ὑμῶν) shall have been completed. He does not mention any persons—not the disobedient, but every (case of) disobedience, and throws out ὑμεῖς into strong relief, as charitably embracing all, or nearly all, those to whom he was writing. Lachmann, strangely, and as it seems to me most absurdly, puts a period at παρακοήν, and joins ὅταν πλη- ρωθῇ tu. ἡ ὑπακοή, Ta κατὰ πρόξωπον βλέπετε. More complete ignorance of the Apostle’s style, and non-appreciation of the fine edge of his hortatory irony, can hardly be evinced, than this. 7—XII. 21.] A digression, in which he vindicates his apostolic dignity, his Sruitfulness in energy and in sufferings, and the honour put on him by the Lord in revelations made to him. 7—11.] He takes them on their own ground. They had looked on his outward appear- ance and designated it as mean. Well then, he says: ‘do ye regard outward appearance? even on that ground I will shew you that I am an Apostle—I will bear out the severity of my letters: I will demonstrate myself to be as much Christ’s, as those who vaunt themselves to be especially His.’ This rendering suits the context best, and keeps the sense of κατὰ mpéswrov in ver. 1. The imperative rendering of Vulg., Ambrose, Theophyl., Billr., Riick., Olsh., De Wette, al.,—‘ look at the things before your eyes,’ καυχήσομαι is objectionable (Meyer), (1) from altering the meaning of κατὰ mpdswrov: (2) be- cause it gives too tame a sense for the energy of the passage: (3) because βλέπετε generally in such sentences, in Paul’s style, comes first, see 1 Cor. i. 26; x. 18; Phil. iii. 2 (866) ; Col. iv. 17. Another way, is to take it as said without a question, but indicatively. So Chrys., Calvin, ‘ Magni facitis alios qui magnis ampullis turgent,— me, quia ostentatione et jactantia careo, de- spicitis.’ Butin that case, surely some fur- ther intimation would have been given of such a sentiment than merely these words, —the break after which, without any con- necting particle, would thus be exceedingly harsh. Others again fancifully mix up with κατὰ mpéswm. the supposed charac- teristics of the (?) Christ-party, the having seen Christ in the flesh: the being headed by James the brother of the Lord, &e. &e. εἴτις. .. .7 If any one believes himself to belong to Christ (lit. ‘ trusts in himself to belong.’ From 1 Cor. i. 12, it certainly was one line taken by the ad- versaries of the Apostle to boast of a nearer connexion with, a more direct obedience to, Christ. in contradistinction to Paul: and to this mind among them he here alludes), let him reckon this again out of his own mind (i. e. let him think afresh, and come to a conclusion obvious to any one’s common sense (ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ) and not requiring any extraneous help to arrive at it), that as he is Christ’s, so also are we (that whatever intimate connexion with or close service of Christ he professes, such, and no less, is mine). 8.] This is shewn to beso. Even more boasting than he had ever yet made of his apostolic “«ὑμων Cc. BDFKL Prabe detgh kimno 17, 47 portance of the fact. 7—ll1. TIPO KOPIN@IOT®S B. 693 ~ n2 €,.. τὧὦ ο 2 Ρ 25 cd 7 > q ’ \ Ὶ τῆς ἢ ἐξουσίας ἡμῶν 5 ἧς Ῥέδωκεν ὁ κύριος εἰς οἰκοδομὴν n see 1 Cor. ix. \ > ᾽ r / (s “ ᾽ ς ] θ ΄ 9 vd καὶ οὐκ εἰς ᾿ καθαίρεσιν ὑμῶν, οὐκ ὃ αἰσχυνθήσομαι, 3 ἵνα 4, and passim. = ch. xiii. 10. o attr., Acts i. , “ἡ A Lal lal »“ 1 ff. μὴ δόξω " ὡς "ἂν " ἐκφοβεῖν ὑμᾶς διὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν. p so Matt. x.1 τι al. fi " / ~ \ > / * 10 ὅτι ai μὲν ἐπιστολαί ἡ φησιν δ᾽ βαρεῖαι καὶ * ἰσχυραί, ἡ 9; Rom. xiv. : Pi ei , δ pe oe One 2 ver. 4. ch. δὲ Yqrapovalia τοῦ σώματος 2 ἀσθενὴς καὶ ὁ λόγος ὃ ἐξουθε- "ὯΝ to ony +. , ll b an b ΄ θ ΠΣ a bi ea y Macc. ill. νημένος. τοῦτο ὃ λογιζέσθω °o " τοιοῦτος, ὃ ὅτι οἷοί ἌΣ -ρεῖν, ὑ 5.) s Luke xvi. 3. Phil. i. 20. 1 Pet. iv. 16. lJohnii. 28 only. Ps. xxxiv. 4. Ὁ { we fins here only. μεγάλα χρήματα ws ἂν εἶναι “Podwmtos, Herod. ii. 135. τ here only. Levit. xxvi.6. (-Bos, Mark ix. 6.) x1 Cor. i. 25 reff. iv. 10. xiv. 3 reff. Ὁ ver. 7. om ἡμων ΟΡ [115-9] Syr copt Chr. G-lat fri [Vig]. Vv see note. y 1 Cor. xvi. 17 reff. c Acts xxii. 22 reff. w = Matt. xxiii. 23. Acts xxv. 7 (reff.). z see 1 Cor. i. 25, a Rom. for kupios, Geos D'(and lat) F(-gr and lat) rec adds μιν, with D3[-gr] F[-gr] KL? rel goth Thdrt [ Damasc]: μοι Syr copt Chr, Thi: pref ημιν P 73 [vulg-clem F-lat am* syr arm Ambrst Vig]: om BC D\(and lat) &' 17 am}(with tol al) wth [ Huthal-ms ]. 9. δοξωμεν D}{and lat] F(not F-lat) Ambrst. εκφοβουντες D G-lat(altern): εκφοβων P. 10. emir. bef μεν ΒΝ]. power, would not disgrace him, but would be borne out by the fact. For if we were to boast (ἐάν is not concessive, but hy- pothetical, as in 1 Cor. xiii. 1. τε γάρ generally has a corresponding clause fol- lowing, with τε, καί, δέ, or 7, as Eur. Phoen. 1313, ἐμός τε yap παῖς γῆς ὄλωλ᾽ ὑπερθανών,. . .. βοᾷ δὲ δῶμα πᾶν, so in reff. and Thucyd. i. 12 bis,—but some-. times the corresponding clause is wanting, being understood, or, as apparently here and in Heb. ii. 11, allowed to pass out of mind while following out the thought of the first clause. See Hartung, Parti- kellehre, i. 115. 5) somewhat more abun- dantly (than we have ever done: or than in vv. 3—6) concerning our power | which the Lord has given for building you up and not for pulling you down (καὶ πῶς φησι, λογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες; ὅτι αὐτὸ τοῦτο μάλιστα οἰκοδομῆς εἶδός ἐστι, τὸ τὰ κωλύματα ἀναιρεῖν, καὶ τὰ σαθρὰ διελέγ- χειν, καὶ τὰ ἀληθῆ συντιθέναι ἐν οἰκοδομῇ. Chrys. Hom. xxii. p. 589), I shall not be put to shame (οὐ δειχθήσομαι ψευ- δόμενος οὐδὲ ἀλαζονευόμενος, Chrys. ib.). 9.7 follows on ver. 8, but requires some clause to be supplied such as ‘ And I say this,’ or the like. Meyer would join it immediately to αἰσχυνθ., and regard it as the purpose to be served by the fact verifying his boast. But as De W. ob- serves, a particular result like this can hardly be bound on to a general assertion like that of ver. 8. To suppose the pur- pose of Pani’s boast of apostolic power being borne out, to be merely ἵνα μὴ δόξω, &c., would be out of keeping with the im- So that ἵνα μὴ δόξω is much better taken subjectively—l1 say this, because I wish not to seem, &c. ὡς av,—as Vulg. ‘tanquam terrere vos.’ It takes off the harshness of ἐκφοβεῖν. “ὡς ἄν in later (? see ref.) Greek, has the sense φασιν B latt(exc D-lat) syrr goth. for υμ., ἡμων F[-gr](not G). om ws av D'[-gr]. εξουδενημενος Β. of ‘ quasi, tanquam,’—&y losing its proper force, in a commonly current expression ; and the sense is much the same as that of ὡς alone.’ Meyer. Winer takes as ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν as = as ἂν ἐκφοβοῖμι, edn. 6, § 42. 6 (but see Moulton’s note, p. 390, 1, who prefers the account given above), and is followed by Olsh., but this, in the presence of the above idiom, is un- necessary. διὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν" He had written ¢wo before this, see 1 Cor. v. 9; but this is not necessarily here implied: for he may reckon this which he is now writing. Still less can we infer hence that a third had been written before this (Bleek). 10.] φησίν, taken by Winer (edn. 6, ὃ 58. 9. ὃ. [B.]), De W., and Meyer, as impersonal —heift e8, ‘men say? but why should not the tis of ver. 7, and 6 τοιοῦτος of ver. 11, be the subject ? βαρεῖαι} see in Wetst., definitions from the rhetori- cians of βαρύτης in discourse. Among other illustrations of it, Aristides mentions ὅταν τι ἄτοπον ἑαυτῷ καταράσῃ" οἷον, τεθνάναι μᾶλλον ἣ ταῦτ᾽ εἰρηκέναι βούλο- μαι (see 1 Cor. ix. 15), and ὅταν εἰς κρίσιν ἀγάγῃς τῶν τεθνεώτων ἐνδόξων, . .. .. οἷον, πηλίκον ἂν στενάξαιεν οἱ πρόγονοι (see 1 Cor. xv. 18). Tapovgia.... ἀσθενής] No countenance 15. given by these words to the idea that Paul was of weak physical constitution, or short in stature. His own explanation of them is sufficient as given in 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff. It is, that when he was present among them, he brought, not the strength of presence or words of the carnal teachers, but abjured all such influence and in fear and trembling preached Christ crucified. It was this, and not weakness of voice, which made his λόγος to be ἐξουθενημένος. - At the same time, the contrast being between his ep/s- tles. and his werd of mouth, his.authority 691 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. x. 3 πὶ - , ὃ ’ DI] a e > , rf \ d Rom.xv.1s. €OMEV TO λόγῳ ι ἐπιστολὼν ξ“ἄποντες, τοιοῦτοι Καὶ BDFK Col. ii. 17. ε 7 ~ » ¢ a“ Lal LP’ | Join ii. 18. © qrapoytes ἃ τῷ ἔργῳ. 15 od yap ' τολμῶμεν ξ ἐγκρῖναι ἢ ς ἃ (see 1 Cor. iv. 19, 20. 1 Thess. 1. 5.) e 1 Cor. v.3 > Ἢ > \ k? e = e \ ΕἸ Ἔ Loh reff. : ἀλλα αυτοὶι εν εαὐτοις EAVUTOVS μέτρουντες, Kab avy- f = 1 Cor. vi. 1 ‘ z 2 " : yi Σ Η͂ ‘ ; g here only τ. KpLVvovVTes E€AUTOVS EAVUTOLS OV ™ guvliacly. 13 NMELS δὲ ουκ os. B. J. ii. 8. 7, εἰς τὸν ὅμιλον ἐγκρίνεται. 18 i Ist pers., ch. iii. 1 reff. j las above (k). Lukei. 38. h here bis. 1 Cor. ii. 13 only $. Gen. xl. 8 al. = Wisd. vii. 29. xv. j ch. iii. 1 (reff.) k Matt. vii. 2 bis. Mark )- iv. 24 bis only. Rey. xi. 1, 2. xxi. 15, 16,17 only. Exod. xvi. 18. m Rom. xv. 21 reff. 12. toAuw (for -uwuev) B: τολμων τη. for εγκρ., κριναι F n. add eautous D}/ and lat]. om τισιν D}[-gr]. αλλ᾽ 11, a m 17 [Chr,]. om 3rd εαυτους N}(ins N-corr! °>!). 2nd eavros bef 4th eavtrovs DK m Chr, Thdrt. ree συνίουσιν, with DIKLP rel: cumoacw δξὶ [93]: txt B X-corr!3 m 17 [Euthal-ms] Thdrt-ed.—om ov συνιασιν ques δε D'(and lat) F vulg[ but ins nu. δε] Ambrst Sing- cler, Sedul Vig,. (Perhaps the transcriber’s eye passed from ov above to ovr follg, and so omitted all between: or perhaps on acct of the difficulty of the words. See the -“ s 4 \ A . . m 2 συγκρῖναι | ἑαυτοὺς τισὶν τῶν 1 ἑαυτοὺς J συνιστανόντων" 1017.47 readings discussed in Stanley’s note.) 13. om ἡμεῖς δε [see above] D'F. as unaccompanied or accompanied by his presence, it must be assumed, that there was something (see on ch. xii. 7) which discommended his appearance and delivery. See the traditional authorities for the Apostle’s personal appearance, in Winer’s Realw. vol. ii. p. 221, note. 11.} λογι- ζέσθω, as in ver. 7. ὁ τοιοῦτος, ViZ. Who thus speaks. The introduction of the verse without any connecting particle gives force and emphasis. After παρόντες supply ἐσμεν, not ἐσόμεθα. Not only the conduct of the Apostle on his next visit, but his general character, is in question. 12—18.} The difficulty of this passage is universally acknowledged. In early times Theodoret wrote: ἀσαφῶς Grav τὸ χώρημα τοῦτο γέγραφεν, and adds asa reason, évap- ya@s ἐλέγξαι τοὺς αἰτίους οὐ βουλόμενος. He substantiates what has just been said, by shewing how unlike he is to those vain per ons who boast of other men’s labours ; —for he boasts of what God had really done among them by him, and hopes that this boast may be yet more increased. 12. disclaims resemblance to those fulse teachers who made themselves their only standard. For we do not venture (ironical ;—“ dum dicit quod non faciat, notat quid isti faciant.” Bengel) to number ourselves with (συναριθμῆσαι, Theophyl., (Ecum., ‘inserere, Vulg.: see examples ot this usage, with eis principally, but also with μετά and ἐπί w. gen., in Wetst.), or compare ourselves with (συγκρίνειν is properly, in classical Greek, ‘to com- pound,’ or ‘unite: but in later Greek, ‘ to compare : 6 συγκριτικὸς τρόπας, with the grammarians, is the comparative degree) some of those who commend themselves (the charge made against him, ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνει, see ch. iii. 1; v. 12, he makes “sa true one against the false teachers) ;— but (they), themselves measuring them- rec ovxt, with D% rel ec: txt BD'FKLPR> selves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are not wise. The renderings are very various. Chrys. al., read συνιοῦσιν, and make it a particip., τουτέστι, μὴ αἰσθανομένοις πῶς εἰσι καταγέλαστοι τοιαῦτα ἀλαζονευόμενοι, p. 590: and see again below. Others, read- ing the same, take it rightly, as = συνιᾶσιν, but make μετροῦντες, &e., the object of συνιοῦσιν : ‘know not that they are mea- suring, &c.: but the corresponding sen- tence, ἡμεῖς δὲ «.7.A., shews that this sense would be irrelevant ; for the Apostle does not oppose their ignorance of their foolish estimate of themselves to his own prac- tice, but that foolish estimate itself. Others again, as Emmerling and Olshausen, take ἀλλὰ---συνιοῦσιν (or -aow) to apply to the Apostle himself, as contrasted with the τινές : ‘ We do not venture, &c.,—but we ourselves measure (supply ἐσμεν, ‘are in the habit of measuring’) ourselves by ourselves (i.e. as ver. 18, by what the Lord has really made us to be), and com- pare ourselves with ourselves, foolish as we are (reputed to be:—ouvmovow being a participle). But foolish we are not: we will not boast ourselves, &e. this rendering would absolutely require the article before οὐ συνιοῦσιν, which, anarthrous, would imply, not an imputa tion, but the fact: (2) the mode of expression (αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἕαυτ. perp.) would be a most extraordinary one te convey the meaning supposed:—and (3) the meaning itself would be irrelevant when obtained. Another variety of this render- ing is to take (as Bos, Schrader, al.) éav- τοῖς, οὐ συνιοῦσιν, = ἑαυτοῖς, ov τοῖς cvviovo.v—with ourselves, not with the wise: which is also inadmissible. Others again (see var. read.) would omit οὐ συνιᾶσιν (or -οὔσιν)" ἡμεῖς 5¢€,—which has been au evident correction, on the suppo- But (1) . Nab efg ] 12—15. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 695 n° No 7 n 4 τ \ Ἀ Ν , a T . 16, εἰς τὰ “ ἄμετρα καυχησόμεθα, ἀλλὰ KATA τὸ μέτρον τοῦ ΒῈ ΜῈ . xii. 6. Ρ κανόνος «οὗ "ἐμέρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς * μέτρου ὃ ἐφικέσθαι ἐπαινεῖν t yy \ ς - ἄχρι καὶ υὑμων. a / ΄ J ὑμᾶς " ὑπερεκτείνομεν " ἑαυτούς, Ww ’ θ / x 5 A > % / Lal ο ~ = ep ασαμεν εν τω ξευῶγΎΞΕ ιῳω του χρίιστ υ v.r.) only. Mic. vii. 4. Judith xiii. 6 only. = Job xxxviii. 5 Aq. (σπαρτίον, LXX.) 7 Rom. xii. 3 (reff.}. Ed-vat. compl. 30 Ed-vat. ἄς. (C def. a®. ABN) only- (ver. 8.) 1 John il. 25. only τ. v lst pers., ver. 12. 7 Theod. e πὶ 17 Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damasc ΤῊ], so ver 15) latt. καυχωμενοι F Sing-cler: om D!(and lat). \ > ’ ἘΡΕ,ὦ »- 14 οὐ γὰρ ὡς μὴ " ἐφικνούμενοι εἰς Pte ΑἸο. 1, o here bis only+. ί-τρητος, 15 Β Isa. xxii. 18.) 9 οὐκ Pp vv. 15, 16. Gal vi. 16. (Phil. iii. 16 : q attr., s here bis only+. Sir. xliii. 27C _ t= Acts xi. 5 reff. u here w Rom. ix. 31 reff. 2 Chron. xxviii.9. Dan. viii. t ἢ Ἁ \ e ~ ἄχρι yap Kal ὑμῶν x Rom. i. 9. ch. viii. 18 al. To αμετρον DIF : immensum (and οσου M [672]. for ἐμερισεν, ἐμετρησεν M ἃ 49. θ4-73. 74 [so latt(exe fri) Sing-cler Vig]. om nuw ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat] L. [ Epiph, ] Chr-ms. 14. for ov yap ws, ws yap B 114-6: ov γ. μὴ ws P [Chr]. αφικν. K: αφικομενοι F: αφικουμενοι 106: X-corr!) d. sition that ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ «.7.A. belonged to the Apostle, to expunge words so much in the way of such an interpretation. I may observe that much of the difficulty has arisen from taking αὐτοί with ἀλλά as the subject to οὐ συνιᾶσιν, whereas it belongs to what follows, ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ ἐν €auT. €auT. μετρ. K.T.A., aS in the version given above: the subject of συνιᾶσιν being to be supplied, and the construction being an inaccurate one. Calvin well illustrates the sense, by the reputation which any moderately learned man gained among the ignorant monks of his day—‘Si quis tenuem modo gustum elegantioris litera- ture habeat, . . . spargitur de eo mirabilis fama, adoratur inter sodales .... Inde _precipue monachis insolentissimus 1116 fastus quod se metiuntur ex se ipsis: quum in eorum claustris nihil sit preter bar- bariem, illic nihil mirum, si regnet luscus inter cecos. Tales erant isti Pauli emuli: sibi enim intus plaudebant, non consi- derantes quibus virtutibus constaret vera laus, quantumque a Pauli et similium ex- cellentia distarent.” 13.] But we (opposed to those spoken of in last verse) will not (ever: will never allow ourselves to) boast without measure (lit. ‘ boast as far as to things unmeasured” εἰς with an adj. and the art. is used to signify the extent to which; so Herod. vii. 229, κατ- εκέατο ἐν ᾿Αλπηνοῖσι ὀφθαλμιῶντες ἐς Td ἔσχατον : as ἐπί with the same denotes the direction towards which, as ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον κοσμοῦντες, ... ἐπὶ TO μυθῶδες ἐκνενι- κηκότα, Thucyd. i. 21,—without measure, scil. as they do who compare themselves with themselves and measure themselves by themselves,—for there is no standard for, no limit to, a man’s good opinion of himself. The plur. τὰ ἄμετρα, instead of τὸ ἄμετρον, seems to be chosen to generalize the negative—‘ we adopt no such vague for Geos, xuptos D Epiph, Vig,. αφικεσθαι F 109 for εφικνουμενοι, εφικομενοι Chr. om 2nd γαρ &1(ins standard for our boasting ’), but according to the measure of the rule (τὸ μέτρ. τοῦ kav.—‘the measure pointed out by the rule,’ gen. subj.) which God apportioned to us as ἃ measure, to reach as far as to you—ow ἐμέρισεν ἡμῖν 6 θ. μέτρου = ὃν ἐμέρ. ju. 6 θ. μέτρον, Which (κανών) God apportioned to us as a measure,—or, as De W., τοῦ μέτρου ὃ ἐμέρ. ju. 6 θ., in which latter case μέτρου is in appos. with κανόνος: but I prefer the former. Mr. Green, Grammar of the N. T. dialect, p- 269, makes μέτρου governed by ἐφι- κέσθαι, aS in οὕτω τάρβους ἀφικόμην, Eur. Phen. 361; τοῦ βίου εὖ ἥκοντι, Herod. i. 30. My objections to this con- struction are, (1) that ἐφικνούμενοι eis ὑμᾶς is used absolutely in the very next clause, which makes it probable that the same usage is found here :—(2) that an un- necessary harshness is introduced, which I cannot persuade myself that the Apostle would have used, and which is apparent even in Mr. G.’s English, ‘of advancing in standard asfar aseven you.’ See Stanley’s note. ἐφικέσθαι is the inf. of the purpose, that we should reach : or per- haps (but not so well) of the result, ‘so that we reach.’ 14, Further expla- nation of ἐφικ. ἄχρι x. tu. For we are not stretching ourselves beyond (our bounds), as (we should be doing) if we did not reach to you (not, as if we had not reached to you, as Luth., Beza: the pres. betokens the allotment of the field of apos- tolic work as his own, ‘ut si non pervenia- mus.’ The μή shews that the case is only a supposed one: so also 1 Cor. iv. 18, but compare 1 Cor. ix. 26, ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων, where the case is the real one; see Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 55. 1 [a]): for even as far as [unto] you did we advance (the proper meaning of φθάνω must hardly be pressed here: the Apostle would not introduce a ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. Χ, 10---Ἰ8, 696 x 3 .“ ΄ πη ene ἄμετρα Υ καυχώμενοι ¥ ἐν 5 ἀλλοτρίοις * κόποις, es eff. ie \ b] 4 A / ς a Na ; Rom. αἰνὰ ἐλπίδα δὲ ἔχοντες ὃ" αὐξανομένης τῆς πίστεῶς ὑμῶν edefg reff. ΜΝ \ , ἐν Τὰ 5 mn wich. τη πεῖς ae ον Ὁ ν ὅ κανονα ὧν εἰ bo Matt, xi, ©Y t pLev μεγαλυνθῆναι κατὰ τὸ ημ ς 017.47 32. Mark iv. trans., 1 Cor. 111, 8 ref. c = Matt. xxiii. σασθαι. ς ΄ € lal » , ὁ περισσείαν, 16 ' εἰς τὰ ἔ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν *evayyehoa- il. > 3 Ζ » / d U h ’ x Ge h , σθαι, οὐκ ἐν τ ἀλλοτρίῳ ἃ κανόνι Els TA ετοιμα " καυχὴη- 171 ὁ δὲ καυχώμενος Y ἐν κυρίῳ Y καυχάσθω: χ é ς / > ate ald οὶ 4 5. Iukei. 08 18 οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἑαυτὸν * συνιστάνων, | ἐκεῖνος ἐστιν ™ δόκιμος, (Acts x. 46 Ε Εν ; Ἁ k ; ὃ reff.) only: ἀλλ’ ὃν O κύριος * συνίστησιν. d ver. 13 reff. v » / / ' > , τ Rom. v.17. XI. 1 α Ὄφελον ° ἀνείχεσθέ μου μικρόν P τι 4 ἀφροσύ- h. viii. 2. Times ν, 2lonly. Eccles. i. 3 al. fl Pet. i. 25. see Heb. ii. 3. g here only t. h ver. 13. iJer. ix. 24. 1Cor.i. 31. k -άνειν, ver. 12. -avat, Rom. iii. 5 reff. 150 Mark vii. 15. John i. 18, 33 al. m = Rom. xiy. 18 reff. n 1 Cor. iv. 8 reff. .Ὁ Ξ- Acts xvill. 14. 2 Tim.iv. 3. Heb. xiii. 22. Job vi. 26. p ver. 16 only. see Heb. ii. 7. q Mark vii 22. νυ. 17,21 only. Job iv. 6. 15. om δε LM cl n. 18. for ov yap o, o yap (but corrd) δὲ), D3KL rel Eus, Dial, Mac, Chr, : {Euthal-ms Antch,] Thdrt Damasc[and ms]. αλλα B M{[appy]. εστιν o δοκ. F. for vuwy, nuwy Bd. συνισταν ἃ: txt BD!FMPR m 17 Orig for nuwy, υμων &. rec (for συνιστανωνὴ συνιστων, with , Ephr, δοκιμὸος bef ecrw DN! [latt]: Crap. XI. 1. ὠφελον D3FKL τὰ n 17 [47 Euthal-ms] Chr-ms Cc :. txt B D'(optdor) MPR rel Chr, Thdrt Damase ΤῊ]. 612 ἡνειχεσθε, with Chr-ed, Thl: ἀνεχεσθε Κ d mn! Chr-ms [Euthal-ms] Thdrt: txt B(Tischdf, expr) DFLMPR rel Chr-2-mss, Damasc (ἔς Thl-ms. μου att μικ. τι agp. F latt [Lucif, Ambrst]. Steph om 7, with F{-gr] KLP rel D-lat(with G-lat fri) Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase He Lucif [Ambrst]: ins B D-gr ΜΝ n 17 vulg(and F-lat) goth [syr Chr,] ΤῊ]. elz ins τὴς bef αφροσυνης, with F ἃ ἃ [Chr,] Thl: om BDPN n 17.—Steph τη αφροσυνη, with distinct thought by a word of secondary importance in the sentence) in the gospel (the element in which our advance was made: ‘the gospel’=‘the promulgation of the gospel’). 15.] in apposition with ov γὰρ x.7.A. ver. 14, and carrying out the thought. Not boasting without measure in other men’s labours (the element of the boasting), but having a hope if (or, as) your faith grows, to be enlarged (not as many Commentators, ‘celebrated : the metaphor of measure still remains) among you (so Chrys., Theophyl., Est., Meyer. ἐν du. is not to be joined with αὐξ., as Luth., Calv., Beza, Olsh., De W., in which case it would be superfluous) according to our rule {i. e. our apportionment of apostolic work, for we seek not ὑπερεκτείνειν Eavrovs) unto abundance (‘so as to abound more than we now do,’ viz. as ver. 16 explains), 10.7 [so as] (with a view) to preach the gospel as far as (sce on εἰς τὰ ἄμ., ver. 15) the parts beyond you (Wetstein quotes from: Thomas Magister, ἐπέκεινα ῥήτορες Aéyouo..... ὑπερεκεῖνα δὲ μόνοι οἱ σύρφακες, ἴα ecanaille),—not (with a view) to boast ourselves within another man’s line (κανών throughout seems to be used of a measuring line: according to the metaphor so common among us, ‘in his line,’—i.e. ‘within the line which Providence has marked out for him’) with regard to (or, ‘to the extent of;’ ‘to extend our boasting to’) things ready made to our hands. 17.| He sets forth to them, in contrast (δέ) to this boasting themselves in another’s line, which was the practice of his adver- saries, wherein the only legitimate boast-. ing must consist: viz, in the Lord, the Source of all grace and strength and suc- cess in the ministry; see 1 Cor. xv. 10. 18.| The reason of this being, that not the self-commender but he whom the Lord commends, by selecting him as His instrument, as He had the Apostle, and giving him the ἐπιστολὴ συστατική, to be known and read by all men, of souls converted and churches founded, is δόκιμος, approved, i.e. really and in the end abiding the test of trial. ἐκεῖνος brings out the distinction of the man who is δόκιμος, —see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 4. We have the usage in English in affirmative sentences, 6. g. ‘The Lord, he is the God, 1 Kings xviii. 89: but not in negative ones. XI. His BOASTING OF HIMSELF: and 1—4.] apologetic intro- duction of it, by stating his motive,—viz. jealousy lest they should fall away from Christ. 1.1 ἀνείχεσθε is the Hel- lenistic form,—jvely. the Attic, not ‘ uti- nam tolerassetis,’ as Calv., al.: the imper- fect is put after εἴθε, ai, ὄφελον, &e., “αὶ optumus cain rerum conditionem, quam non ΧΙ. 1--4, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ Β. 697 νῆς. ἀλλὰ καὶ 5 ἀνέχεσθέ μου. 3" ζηλῷ yap ὑμᾶς § θεοῦ τ -- Gai. iv. 17 bis. Zech. i. / E ς / ν Cte Lib We a) ath vs ‘ 14, Ξ ζήλῳ ᾿ἡρμοσάμην yap υμαᾶς E€Vt ἀνδρὶ παρθένον ΦὙΡΏΨΝ 5 Rom. x. 2. see , Acts xxii. 3. τῇ a a τς Ee +r Ν᾽ ΣΥ xy ὡς tl ly. παραστῆσαι τῷ χριστῷ φοβοῦμαι δὲ Ἢ μή ἢ πως, ὡς Prov. αὐ πιά, b ΄ 3 sy Usee Rey. xiv. πανουργίᾳ αὐτου, ς (1 Cor. fs ͵ \ vii. 25 reff.) ATROTNTOS καὶ ¥ = Tit. ii. 5. 1 Pet. iii. 2. 4: > \ \ c εἰ μὲν yap o 5) 5) ΄ ΠῚ b2 A ὁ *ddis " ἐξηπάτησεν Kvay ὃ ἐν τῇ A \ ,ὕ ς A > \ a “φθαρῇ ta “νοήματα ὑμῶν “ ἀπὸ τῆς an $: t a >? Ν / τῆς Sayvotntos τῆς ὃ εἰς τὸν χριστόν. Prov. xix. 13. (ch. vii. 11 oy erent: x ch. xii. 20. Gal. iy. 11. w = Luke ii.22. Rom. vi. 13,.16, 19. xii. 1. ch. iv. 14. Ps. v. 3. ; y 1 Cor. ix. 27 reff. z Rey. xii. 9. xx. 2. GeEn. iii. 1 ff. a Rom. vii. 11 reff. b = 1 Cor. iii. 19 (reff.). c i Cor. iit. 17 reff. d ch. ii. 11 retf. e = Rom. vii. 2. ix. 3 (reff.). f Rom. xii. 8 reff. g ch. vi. 6 only +. ἢ = ch, viii, 22. Eph, i. 15 al, KL rel copt [Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase (ic ]}. (M def.) ανασχεσθε ᾿ξ. 3. om de L. for πως, ποτε F a Chr-comm,/ txtatic] : om D!(and lat) vulg fri Clem, Lucif, [Ambrst Jer, ]. om ws L. rec evav bef εξηπατησεν, with DKL rel vulg(and F-lat) fri syr [goth arm] Clem, (Chr, Thdrt] Orig-int, Lucif, [Ambrst] : txt BFMP() m 17 (Syr) copt eth Clem, Orig,(-int,) Eus, Damase [ Euthal-ms Gand, | Jer,.—for εὐαν, υμιν &', but evay written above by δὲ! oF 5, om ev D!-gr vulg F-lat fri Orig-int, Lucit [Ambrst Augszpe |. rec ins ovtw bef φθαρη, with D?-3[-gr | KLM rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr Orig,(-int;) Chr, Thdrt Damase Archel, [Ambrst AUgsepe]: om BD!FPRN old-lat copt [goth] arm Clem, Eus, [ Euthal-ms] Gaud, Lucif,. rec om Καὶ Ths αγνοτ., with D3KLUMP rel vulg(and F-lat) Syr Clem, Orig,(-int,) Eus, Chr, Thdrt (Euthal-ms (Lucif, Ambrst) Jer,]: ins BF &1(N3 has it in brackets) a 17 tol syr-w-ast copt goth wth Archel, [Damasc] Augsepe, and (but transp aA. and ayy.) D'(with lat) Epiph,. (Ze omission appy arose from the similarity of endgs. Meyer and De Wette suppose ayv. to have been a gloss, to explain απλ., and after- wards to have found its way into the text.) om tov FMN d 80-9. esse sentimus :’? Klotz ad Devar. p. 516, cited by Meyer. μου and ἀφροσύνης are not both genitives after μικρόν τι, as Meyer : nor is it so in the passage quoted by him, Job vi. 26, LXX: οὐδὲ yap ὑμῶν φθέγμα ῥήματος (φθέγματος ῥήματος ὑμῶν, A) ἀνέξομαι. In both cases the personal pronoun is governed by the verb, as indeed here in ἀνέχεσθέ μου immediately fol- lowing—and μικρόν τι ἀφροσύνης is the accusative of remote reference, as in the double accus. construction. ἀλλὰ κι But (why need I request this ὃ for (you really (see note, ch. v. 3) do bear with me. The indicative is much better than the imperative rendering (as Vulg., Beza, Calvin, Grot., Estius, Bengel, al.),—which, after ὄφελον ἀνείχ., is very flat, and gives no account of the καί. He says it, to shew them that he does not express the wish as_ supposing them void of tolerance for his weakness, but as having experienced some at their hands, and now requiring more. 2. ‘That forbearance which you do reall extend to me, and for more of which I now pray, is due from you, and I claim to have it exercised by you, because I have undertaken to present you to Christ as a chaste bride to her husband, and (ver. 3) I am jealous for fear of your fall- ing away from Him.’ θεοῦ ζήλῳ] . 80 εἰλικρινείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ch. 1. 12: a godly jealousy: see note there. Meyer after Chrys., Estius, al., would render it, ‘ with God’s jealousy, ‘with such a jealousy as God has.” But though θεοῦ ζήλῳ and τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ζήλῳ are for most pur- poses identical, I cannot but think that the latter expression would have been chosen to express such an idea as ‘ with the zeal which God has.’ And the ren- dering, ‘ with a godly zeal, i.e. one which has God’s honour at heart, satisfies well what follows: see below. ἥρμο- σάμην] I betrothed you (viz. at your conversion: προμνήστωρ ὑμῶν ἐγενόμην καὶ τοῦ γάμον μεσίτης, Theodoret. Or- dinarily, the father, or the bridesman (παρανύμφιοΞ) is said ἁρμόζειν : the middle voice is used of the bridegroom only. So among other examples in Wetst.,— εἶχεν ἐν δόμοις Αἴγισθος, οὐδ᾽ ἥρμοζε νυμ- φίῳ τινί, Eur. Electr. 24,—and apuoca- μένου Λευτυχίδεω Πέρκαλον τὴν Χίλωνος θυγατέρα, καὶ σχὼν yuvaika..., Herod. vi. 65. But in Philo we have γάμος ὃν ἁρμόζεται ἡδονή, de Abr. § 20, vol. ii. p. 15) to one husband, to present (i.e. in order that I may present in you[, present you as |) a chaste virgin to Christ (viz. at His coming : ὃ μὲν οὖν παρὼν καιρὸς μνηστείας ἐστίν" 6 δὲ μέλλων τῶν γάμων, ὅτε κραυγὴ γίνεται, ἰδοὺ ὁ νυμφίος. Theophyl.) τῷ Χρ. is not in constructive apposition with ἑνὶ ἀνδρί, but explains and fixes it: the emphasis being on παρθένον ἁγνήν. 3 | But he fears their being seduced from their fidelity to Christ. ὁ ὄφις) He tukes for granted that the Corinthians re- cognized the agency of Satan in the (well- known) serpent: see vv. 13—15, where his μετασχηματισμός for the sake of deceit is alluded to. ἐν τῇ παν. αὐτοῦ] in 698 i particip., Gal. v. 8 δὲ ee 1 Thess. v. 24. ἢ l k Acts ix. 20 reff. / , ἃ γέλιον τὰ ἕτερον ὃ 1 Acts yill. 15 reff. IPOs KOPIN@IOTS B. i ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον * Ἰησοῦν ὃ XI. κηρύσσει, Ol οὐκ ἐκηρύξαμεν, πνεῦμα ™ ἕτερον 'ἱ λαμβάνετε ὃ οὐκ ἐλάβετε, ἢ εὐαγ- οὐκ ἐδέξασθε, καλῶς 5 ἀνέχεσθε. "- \ ΄ a Ι το τ 61.1.6 αι. > ὃ λογίζομαι Ρ γὰρ μηδὲν 4 ὑστερηκέναι τῶν * ὑπερλίαν n ver. 1. : o constr., Rom. xiv. 14 reff. p Acts xxiy. δ. rch. xii. 11 only +. 4. for ino., χριστον F 41 vulg arm Ambrst Pel. in δὲ the 2nd erepoy is written twice, but marked for erasure by X! or corr’. λαμβανετε ΕἾ not F-lat]. 2 Tim. ii. 7. q constr., Rom. iii. 23. (ch. i. 7 reff.) for edaBere, εδεξασθε F. add rec ἡνεύχεσθε (see ver 1), with rel Chr,-ed Thdrt-ed : αιειχεσθε D3GKLMPR b! ὁ f g mo Chr-ms, [Euthal-ms] Damase, everxeora: F: txt B[D!] 17 Cyr,, patimini fri. 5. for yap, δε Bb 178 arm. (i.e. by means of, as the element in which the deed was done) his versatility (or subtlety),— $0 (οὕτω has been a gloss from the margin) your thoughts (‘ sentiments,’ ref. and ch. x. 5) be corrupted from (preg- nant construction. = be corrupted, and seduced from) your simplicity (singleness of affection) and your chastity towards Christ (eis xp. is not = ἐν χριστῷ, as Vulg., E. V., Beza, Calvin, al.). 4, 5.| The thought here seems to be this :—‘If these new teachers had brought with them a new Gospel, superseding that which I preached, they might have some claim to your regard. But, since there is but one gospel, that which I preached to you, and which they pretend to preach also, I submit that iz that one no claim to regard is prior to mine.’ Observe, that the whole hypothesis is ironical : it is fixed und clear that there can be no such new gospel: therefore the inference is the stronger. For (the whole sentence is steeped in irony :—‘ the serpent deceived Eve by subtlety: I fear for you, but not because the new teachers use such subtlety — if they did, if the temptation were really formidable, there would be some excuse.’ All this lies in the γάρ) if indeed (εἰ μέν introduces a reality, and is full here of deep irony. Cf. Il. a. 135, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν δώσουσι γέρας μεγάθυμοι ᾿Αχαιοί : ‘if the Achzans shall really give me another οἰ; and μ. 138—142, εἰ μὲν δὴ ᾿Αντιμάχοιο δαΐφρονος υἱέες ἐστὸν . . « νῦν μὲν δὴ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀεικέα τίσετε λώβην. .., “af ye really are, &., . . . ye verily will? See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 414) he that cometh (viz. the false teachers gene- rically thus designated: but here too per- haps there is irony: 6 ἐρχόμενος was a ῥῆμα σεμνόν) is preaching (the indicative pres. caries on the ironical assumption, _ so λαμβ. below) another Jesus whom we preached not, or ye are receiving a dif- ferent Spirit (ἄλλος, distinctive of indi- viduality, ἕτερος of kind), which ye re- ceived not (from us), or another gospel which ye accepted not (ἐλάβ., 25€¢.,— ‘verba diversa, rei apta. Non concurrit aft υστερήκεναι ins εν υμιν D1 (and lat) fri(with fald tol). voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, ut in recipiendo evangelio.’ Bengel. But singularly enough, in English, usage has attached the voluntary act to the verb ‘ accept’) ye with reason bear with him (irony again: for they not only bore with, but preferred them to their father in the faith. The sense is: “there seems to be some excuse in that case,—but even in that, really there is none,—for your tolerating him.’ — On the rec., Bengel remarks: ‘ Ponit conditionem, ex parte rei, impossibilem: ideo dicit in imperfecto, toleraretis: sed pro conatu pseudaposto- lorum, non modo possibilein, sed plane presentem: ideo dicit in presenti, pre- dicat.’ Similarly Meyer. See Winer, edn. 6, § 42. 2. That the rendering above given is right, seems to me beyond ques- tion. It is the only one which reaches the depth of the exquisite irony of the sen- tence, at the same time that it satisfies all grammatical requirements. δ.) See above. ‘Seeing that there is but one gospel, and they and I profess to preach one Jesus and impart one Spirit, they have no such claim: mine is superior’): for I reckon that in no respect do I fall short of (the perf. sets forth the past and pre- sent truth of the fact) these overmuch Apostles. τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστ. has very commonly been taken to mean bona fide ‘the greatest Apostles,’ i. e. Peter, James, and John, or perhaps the Twelve: but (1) this hardly seems to suit the ex- pression ὑπερλίαν, in which I cannot help seeing, with De W., some bitterness: (2) it would be alien from the spirit of the passage, in which he institutes no com- parison whatever between himself and the other Apostles, but only between himself and the false teachers. (3) had any such comparison been here intended, the ‘ punc- tum compurationis’ would not have been, personal eminence in fruits of apostolic work and sufferings, still less, seeing that the other Apostles were unlearned also, the distinction which immediately follows, between an ἰδιώτης, and one pretending to more skill,—but priority of arrival and BDFKL MPNab edefg hkima 017. 47 5—8. » lA αἀποστολων. " / ἡ γνώσει, ἀλλ᾽ Υὶ tas. 127 ae ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOTS B. ἐποίησ a, ἐμαυτὸν 699 6 εἰ b δὲ καὶ " ἰδιώτης τῷ ᾿ λόγῳ, " ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῇ 5 Στὴ ι3 παντὶ * φανερώσαντες δ ἐν" πρᾶσιν εἰς “Goons ἘΠ. cd reff. ταπεινῶν ἵνα v = 1 Cor: xii. 8 ad a @ rn o b] es Pa ϑ νι ὑμεῖς “ ὑψωθῆτε, ὅτι ἴ δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ § θεοῦ ὅ εὐαγγέλιον * «ἰν ἰν.8 τοῦ. " εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν; 8 ἄλλας Ἰἐκκλησίας * ἐσύλησα λαβὼν 12. Heb. xiii. 4. zso 1 Cor. vi. 2. iii. 4, 8, 9. 3 Kings xvi. 19. bis. Luke xiv. 11 bis. xviii. 14 bis. (c). Matt. xviii. 4. 23. xiii. 7 al. Deut. xvii. 20. h constr., 1 Cor xv. 1 reff. Acts xix. 31. Rom. ii. 22. Col. ii. 8. 6. om δε oo Jat) am(with demid [tol] F-lat G-lat) copt goth arm. WiwTys ins εἰμι D'(and lat) G-lat [demid (Ambrst) ]. James iv. 10. Luke iii. 5, from Isa. xl. 4. ch. xi. 21. i plur., Kom. xvi. 16 reff. (-εὐειν, Exod. iii. 22 Symm.? [rather Aq.]} = Col. iv. 4. y masc., 1 Cor, viii. 7. see Phil. iv. a John viii. 34. James v.15. 1 Pet. ii. 22. 1John bso 1 Cor. vi. 18. Gen. xxxix. 9. c Matt. xxiii. 12 WPetive 6.) Ps χα σύ 15: d as above Phil. ii. 8. iv. 12 only. e Acts ii. f — Rom. iii. 24 reff. Rom. xv. 16 reff. Ξ k here only+. Ep. Jer. 18 only. see aft rec φανερωθεντες, with D3{-gr] KLUP rel fri syrr copt Chr, Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damasc] Sedul(manifesti sumus [50 vulg-clem harl tol ]): G-lat(altern) am(with demid flor F- lat) lat-ff: and, adding eavrovs, M 1082 8-pe goth arm: gavepwoat eavtovs 67°. φανερωθεις (manifestus or -status sum) D'-?(and lat) -ρωθεντι 1. 108: txt Β F[-gr] δὲ 17 (The variety appears to have arisen from the difficulty of φανερωσαντες, which became φαν. eavtous, and then -gwevtes.) 7. aft ἤ ins μη F vulg fri [Ambrst Pel]. teaching in Corinth. (4) the expression ψευδαπόστολος ver. 13, seems to me to refer to, and give the plain sense of, this ironical designation of ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι. (5) the same expression ch. xii. 11 appears even more plainly than here to require this explanation. The above explanation is that of Beza, Michaelis, Schulz, Fritzsche, Billroth, Riickert, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette. ὑπερλίαν is not found in classic Greek: but Wetstein cites from Eustath. Od. a. p- 27, 35: ἔστι γάρ ποτε καὶ τῷ λίαν κατὰ τὴν τραγῳδίαν χρᾶσθαι καλῶς, καθ᾽ ὃ σημαινόμενον λέγομέν τινα ὑπερλίαν σοφόν. Meyer instances as analogous, ὑπεράγαν (2 Macc. x. 34), ὑπέρευ (ὑπέρευ πεπολίτευμαι, Demosth. 228. 17), and the frequent use by Paul of compounds of ὑπέρ. It has been the practice of Pro- testant Commentators (e. g. Bengel, Mac- knight) to udduce this verse against the primacy of Peter, and of the Romanists (e. g. Corn.-a-Lapide) to evade the in- ference by supposing the pre-eminence to be only in gifts and preaching, not in power and jurisdiction. All this will fall to the ground with the supposed reference to the other Apostles. 6.] Explains that, though i one particular he may fall short of them, viz.in rhetorical finish and word-wisdom, yet in real knowledge, not so. ἰδιώτης a laic,—a man not professionally acquainted with that which he undertakes, see reff. The Apostle dis- claims mere rhetorical aptitude and power in 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff. ἀλλά brings out the contrast, see reff. :—e% To: σύ γε σεωῦτοῦ μὴ προορᾷς, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν τοῦτό ἐστι ov περιοπτέον, Herod. v. 39. τῇ γνώσει] the depth of his knowledge of the mystery of the gospel, see Eph. iii. 1—4. om ev πασιν F vulg fri Syr Ambrst [Pel]. for ἐμαυτον, εαυτον DFLP h 93. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντί] But in every matter we made things manifest (1. 6. the things of the gospel, thereby shewing our γνῶσις ; — not, τὴν γνῶσιν. Meyer and De W. sup- pose φανερώσαντες to have been a gloss for φανερωθέντες, especially as it is fol- lowed in some mss. by ἑαυτούς, and to have been the more readily received into the text, because it might easily be taken with γνῶσιν. But how improbable that the easy φανερωθέντες should have been replaced by the harsh -cayres. Much rather would the latter be replaced by φανερωθέντες from ch. v. 11) before all men (ἐν πᾶσιν, being separated from ἐν παντί by the verb, cannot be coupled with it, as in ref. Phil., but must mean among all) unto you (i.e. with a view to your benefit: not = ‘to you,’ in which sense the dative is always found after φανερόω : see Rom. iii. 21, πεφανέρωται ΣΟ τ εἰς πάντας κ. ἐπὶ πάντας... .). 7.] Another particular in which he was ποῦ behind, but excelled, the ὑπερλίαν ἀπό- στολοι; viz. the gratuitous exercise of his ministry among them. On the sense, see 1 Cor. ix.1 ff. and notes. Thesupposition is one of sharp irony. ἐμ.. ταπεινῶν] See Acts xviii. 3. The exaltation which they received by his demeaning himself was that of reception into the blessings of the gospel, which was more etfectually wrought thereby : not merely, their being thus more favoured temporarily, or in comparison with other churches. ὅτι δωρ., &c., is epexegetical of ἐμαυτὸν τα- πεινῶν ;—in that I gratuitously, &c. :— not, as Meyer, ἅμαρτ. ἐποίησα ὅτι, making ἐμαυτὸν. . . ὕψωθ. parenthetical. It was his wish to preach to them gratuitously, which necessitated his ταπεινοῦν ἑαυτόν, 700 ] Tuke iii. 14. Rom. vi. 23. 1 Cor. ix. 7 onlyt+. Esdr. iy. 56. 1 Macc. iii. 28. xiv. 32 only. m = ch. viii. reff. n = 2 Tim. iv. 11. Heb.i 14. o Acts xii. 20. Gal. iv. 18, 20 only. =: Luke xv. 14. Phil. iv. 12. Heb. xi. 37. r 1 Cor. xvi. 17 reff. u here only +. 7. 1Johni. 8. \ ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας)" καὶ \ / Υ ἐτήρησα καὶ * τηρήσω. 5 / e/ e / ἐμοὶ, OTL ἡ " καυχησις Sir. xiii. 4. v0 Tim. v.22. x see Rom. iii. 7. xv. 8. xi. 33 only. Hos. ii.6. (ἐμφράττ., Dan, vi. 22 Theod.) 32 reff. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. ΧΙ, , 4 ΄ - A \ léxhwviov ™ πρρὸς τὴν ὑμῶν ὃ" διακονίαν, καὶ “παρὼν ° πρὸς “ ΄, \ ὑμᾶς καὶ P ὑστερηθεὶς οὐ ἃ κατενάρκησα οὐθενὸς 3 (τὸ yap ὑστέρημά μου ὅ προςανεπλήρωσαν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἐλθόντες ’ t \ u b] fel 9 \ ¢ . ἐν 'qavtt ἃ ἀβαρῆ ἐμαυτὸν ὑμῖν 10 ἔστιν * ἀλήθεια * χριστοῦ ™ ἐν .“ » Z / > > \ b] αὕτη ov * φραγήσεται εἰς ἐμὲ ἐν a a 7 of \ / -“ > > lal τοῖς ὃ κλίμασιν τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας. 110 διὰ τί ; OTL οὐκ ἀγαπῶ q ch. xii. 13, 14 only+. (ναρκᾷν, Gen. xxxii. 25, 32. Job xxxiii. 19.) s ch. ix. 12 only t. James i. 27. Wisd. xix. 4 only. t ch. iy. 8 reff. Wisd. x. ὍΣ w Acts xiii. 15. 1 Cor. viii. y Rom. iii. 27 reff. z Rom. iii. 19. Heb. a Rom. xv. 23 reff. b Rom. ix. 8. (ovBevos, so BMPX m 17 [Euthal-ms] Damasc(appy).) 9. rec vuw bef εμαυτον, with D-gr FLX? rel [goth arm Thdrt Damase]: om vu K m! Syr: txt BMPR* m? 17 vulg D-lat [F-lat Euthal-ms]. 10. Steph (for φραγησεται) σφραγισεται, for εἰς ewe, ev εμοι F : om ὁ D! Thdrt. (M uncert.) FKLM PX rel. 11. om o7: B i.e. not exercising the apostolic power which he might have exercised, but living on subsidies from others, besides (which he does not here distinctly allude to) his working with his own hands at Corinth. See Stanley. 8.1 The ‘ other churches’ were the Macedonian, cf. ver. 9. Among them the Philippians were probably con- spicuous, retaining as doubtless they did, their former affection to him ; see Phil. iv. 15, 16. ἐσύλησα is hyperbolic, to bring out the contrast, and shame them. ὀψ., see reff., wages; more pro- perly here subsidy. πρὸς τ. Up. διακ.} in order to (to support me in) my ministration to you, gen. obj. ἄλλας and ὑμῶν stand in the emphatic positions, as contrasted. In the former sentence, he implied that he brought with him from Macedonia supplies towards his maintenance at Corinth: λαβὼν... πρὸς τ. bu. diax.: here, he speaks of a new supply during his residence with the Corinthians, when those resources failed. κατ- evapxynoa] apparently = κατεβάρησα, ch. xii. 16. Hesych. interprets it ἐβάρυνα. Jerome, Ep. exxi. (cli.) ad Algasiam, quest. 10, vol. i. p. 879, says, ‘ multa sunt verba, quibus juxta morem urbis et provincie suze familiarius Apostolus utitur: e quibus ex. gr. pauca ponenda sunt. . . . Et, οὐ κατ- ενάρκησα ὑμᾶς, hoe est, non gravavi vos... quibus et aliis multis usque hodie utuntur Cilices.’ Theophylact and Gcum. mention a rendering, οὐκ ἠμέλησα, ἢ ῥᾳθυμοτέρως πρὸς τὸ κήρυγμα γέγονα : and Beza, follow- ing the etymology, interprets οὐκ ἐνάρκησα κατ᾽ οὐδενός, ‘cum cujusquam incommodo.’ But the former meaning suits the context better. The word is found no where else Ww ith d: σφραγησεται 14. 74, 238: txt BD 12.12 0. om τὴ F. in Greek. ἀποναρκάω occurs in Plutarch, de Liber. Educatione, p. 8, F (Wetst.), ἀπο- ναρκῶσι κ. φρίττουσι πρὸς τοὺς πόνους. On the government of the genitive by verbs compounded with κατά, see Matthie, § 376. 9.1 For (reason why he burdened no one) the brethren (who, he does not say: their names were well known to the Corinthians. Possibly, Timotheus and Silas, Acts xviii. 5) when they came from Macedonia (not as Εἰ. V., ‘ which came,’ oi ἐλθόντε5) brought a fresh supply of my want (or perhaps mposav. is used without the idea of additional supply, as in ch. ix. 12, the πρός merely denoting direc- tion): and in every thing I kept myself (‘during my residence: not, ‘have kept myself, as E. V.) unburdensome to you, aud will keep myself. 10.1 The truth of Christ is in me, that...; i.e. ‘I speak according to that truth of which Christ Himself was our example, when I say, that... ;’—there is no oath, nor even as- severation, as E. V. and most Commenta- tors introduce. The expression is exactly analogous to Rom. ix. 1. ἡ καύχ. ....] this boasting (not = καύχημα, here or any where else) shall not be stopped (supply τὸ στόμα, which is not expressed, because καύχησις being itself a matter of utterance, suits the sense of the verb without it) as regards (or against) me (καύχ. is as it were personified —shall not have its mouth stopped as regards me) in the regions of Achaia (where the καύ- xnois is imagined as being and speaking). 11.] He presupposes, and negatives, a reason likely to be given for this resolu- tion ; viz. that he loves them not, and there- fore will be under no obligation to them : BDFKL MPxRab cdefg hkIlmn 017.47 9-- 19. ὑμᾶς ; ὁ θεὸς Coder. 13 ὃ δὲ 1 ἐκκόψω τὴν “ ἀφορμὴν τῶν θελόντων ᾧ 8 καυχῶνται "εὑρεθῶσιν καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς. Ι ἐργάται ™ δόλ ργάται ™ δόλιοι, = »“" ~ / i τοιοῦτοι * ψευδαπόστολοι, ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS B. 701 ποιῶ. καὶ ποιήσω, ἵνα ς ch. xii. 2, 8. fe Josh. xxii. 22. d Rom. xi. 22 "ἀφορμήν, | iva, *8 ἐν 4 Rom. xi. 2, e Rom. vii. 8 f aia Matt. Xx; 23 al. g Rom. ii. 17 18 igg yap " μετασχη- reff. h =1 Cor. iv. 2 reff. i Acts xxii. 22 reff. k here only +. see Rev. ii. 2. 1 Matt. ix. 37 al.t Wisd. xvii. 17 al. = Phil. iii. 2. m here only. Prov. xii. 6. (-tovv, Rom. iii. 13.) nhere 3ce. 1Cor.iv.6. Phil. iii. 21 only+. 1 Kings xxviii. 8 Symm. Jos. Antt. vii. 10. 5. 12. vues F[-gr(not G) } d. 18. for οἱ, ov F[-gr]. for we willingly incur obligations to those whom we love. οἶδεν, scil. ὅτι ὑμᾶς ἀγαπῶ. 12.] The true reason :— But that which I do, I will also con- tinue to do (καὶ womowd#must not, as Erasm., be coupled to ποιῶ, and διὰ τοῦτο ποιῷ supplied before fva,—because it is for his resolution respecting the future that the reason is especially given) in order that I may cut off the occasion (τήν, which would be furnished if I did not so) of those who wish for an occasion (viz. of depreciating me by misrepresenting my motives if I took money of you). Many (Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., Grot., Billroth; al.) take this occasion to be one of aggran- _ dizing themselves above Paul ἐγ all took money, assuming that the false teachers, as well as Paul, took none: which is ex- tremely unlikely, from the prominence which he gives to the boast of his own abstinence in this point,—and seems di- rectly opposed to ver. 20 and to 1 Cor. ix. 12. ἵνα ἐν © x.7.A.j that, in the matter of which they boast, they may be found even as we. Such appears gene- rally acknowledged to be the rendering ; but as to the meaning, there is great variety of opinion. (1) Many of the an- eient Commentators assume that they taught gratis, aud were proud of it,—and that Paul would also teach gratis, to put both on an equality and take this occasion of boasting from them. This would suit the sense of the present verse, but seems (see above) at variance with the fact. (2) Theodoret, whom Meyer, al., follow, sup- poses them to have pretended to the credit of self-denial, while really making gain, and that Paul means, that he will reduce them from pretended to real self-denial. But this tco is inconsistent with the con- text. Paul’s boast of disinterested teach- ing was peculiarly is own, and there is ucthing to shew that the false teachers ever professed or made any boast of the like. His resolution did not spring out of an actual comparison instituted by them between their own practice and what they might fulsely allege to be his, but was adopted even before his coming to Corinth, ψευδοαπ. D}, om es Ε΄, » arguing ὦ priori that it was best to cut off any possible occasion of such depreciation of him from his probable adversaries. (3) Others, Cajetan, Estius, after Aug. de Serm. Dom. in Monte ii. 16 (54), vol. iii. Ρ. 1292,—also Bengel, —join ba... ἡμεῖς with apopunv,—‘ occasion that they may be found even as we, and explain ἐν @ Kavx. as a parenthesis, ‘that they may be found (a point in which they boast) even as we? i. e. ‘that in point of selfishness and covetousness, we mey be both on a level.” But this meaning would require rather εὑρεθῶμεν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοί, ‘we may be reduced to ¢heir level.’ (4) Olsh., adopting in the main the last . interpretation, would understand ἐν 6 καυχῶνται of the taking of money of which they boasted, accounting it an apostolic prerogative. But to this the last stated objection applies even more forcibly : and besides, the supposition is wholly arbitrary. (5) De Wette, believing the second ἵνα to be parallel with the first, as in (1) and (2), understands ἐν @ καυχῶνται as applying to their boast of apostolic efficiency: ‘that they may, in their apostolic work which they vaunt with such pretension, be found even as we,’ and thinks the transition to what follows thus madeeasy. But the ob- jection to this is, that the punetum compa- vationis in the rest of the chapter is not apostolic efficiency, but ‘rather matters κατὰ σάρκα. (6) I cannot adopt any one of the above accounts of the sentence, for the negative reasons already given, and be- cause all of them seem to me to have missed the clue tothe meaning which the chapter itself furnishes. This clue I find in vv. 18 ff. The καυχῶνται is there taken up, de- scribed as being κατὰ σάρκα: the καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς is taken up by Ἑβραῖοί εἶσιν ; κἀγώ: ἄς. From this it is manifest to me, that his meaning in our present clause is, ‘that in the matter(s) of which they boast they may be found even as we;’ i.e. ‘we may be on a fair and equal footing :’ ‘ that there may be no adventitious comparisons made between us arising out of misrepre- sentations of my course of procedure among you, but that in every matter of boasting, 702 o Rey. xvii. 6 only. Job xvVil. 8. xviii. 20 only. p see Eph. τ. 8. 1 Thess. v.5al. = 1 Cor. ix. 11 only. Gen. xlv. 28. Isa. xlix. 6. Υ see Gal. ii. 17. > 4 ce r αὐτὸς yap ὁ σατανᾶς ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ B. ματιζόμενοι εἰς ἀποστόλους χριστοῦ. XI. 14 καὶ οὐ ° θαῦμα’ " μετασχηματίζεται εἰς ἄγγελον Ρ φωτός: 15 οὐ «μέγα οὖν εἰ καὶ οἱ διάκονοι αὐτοῦ " μετα- σχηματίζονται ὡς " διάκονοι " δικαιοσύνης, ὧν τὸ * τέλος ἔσται " κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν. 16 Πάλιν λέγω, μή τις με Υ δόξη ἡ ἄφρονα εἶναι" “ εἰ * δὲ * μήγε, ἡ κἂν ὡς ἡ ἄφρονα 21 reff. ap , , (vA > \ / , ἃ uRomii6. ΖΦ δέξᾳσθέ με, ἵνα κἀγὼ ὃ μικρόν ὅτι ἢ καυχήσωμαι. | 0 ib ae θα. a \ ΄ὔ a > > ¢ > > , avis λαλῶ, ov " κατὰ " κύριον λαλῶ, GAN ἃ ὡς “ ἐν © ἀφροσύνῃ, ἘΞ ΩΝ w Luke xi. 40. Rom. ii. 20 al. L.P., exc. 1 Pet. ii. 15. Prov. passim. x Matt. vi. 1. ix. 17. Luke v. 36, 37. x. ?. xiii. 9. xiv. 32 only. y Acts v. 15 reff. z see Matt. x. 14. ch. a ver. 1. e ver. i reff. vii. 15 al. d so John vii. 10. Σ y Ὁ absol., 1 Cor. i. 29. iv. 7 al. c see ch. vil. 9—11. 14. rec (for @avua) θαυμαστον, with D?°KLM rel: txt BD'FP/R|® a 17 Orig, [Euthal-ms Damasc-ms]. Cypr Lucif, Ambrst { Promiss}. 15. om ovv D!(and lat) spee Syr goth arm Lucif). for εἰς αἀγγελον, ws ayyeAos D}(and lat) Orig-int-mss, om διακονοι K. εαυτου K. for eta, εστιν D}(and lat) [spec] Lucif. 16. om γε D!. [Euthal-ms ]}. rec wixpov τι bef καγω, with syr Ec: txt BDFKLMP[RI& rel latt Syr goth eth arm [Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc}. kavxnoouat DKELP{ ΙΝ] d! 17. rec Aadw bef κατα κυριον, with DLM rel vulg(not F-lat) fri syr copt goth : txt BFKP[R]8 ad (m[k. av@pwrov]}) 17. 47 Syr eth arm [Bas,] Chr, Damasc. we may be fairly compared and judged by facts.’ And then, before the γάρ of ver. .13 will naturally be supplied, ‘And this will end in their discomfiture: for realities they have none, no weapons but misrepre- sentation, being false Apostles,’ Ke. .18.7 For (see above: the γάρ implying also that the choice of the above line of conduct has been made in a conviction of their falsehood and its efficacy to detect it) such men are false Apostles (not, as Vulg. and most expositors, ‘such false Apostles are épy. 56X.,’ which destroys the whole empha- sis of the sentence, wherein the ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι of ver. 5 are pronounced now to be ψευδαπόστολοι: and besides, suggests an irrelevant comparison between oi τοιοῦ- τοι ψ. and ψ. of some other kind. On the sense, see Rev. ii. 2. 6 TOLOUTOS is a familiar designation with the Apostle, see reff.),—dishonest workmen (in that they pretend to be teachers of the Gospel, and are in the mean time subserving their own ends),— changing themselves into (in appearance: the pres. participle indicates their habit and continual endeavours to as- sume the shape) Apostles of Christ. Bya fair comparison between us, this mask will be stript off;—by the abundance of my sufferings, and distinctions vouchsafed by the Lord, my Apostolicity will be fully proved, and their Pseudapostolism shewn. 14, 15.] οὐ @atpa—so Aristoph. Plut. 99, καὶ θαῦμά γ᾽ οὐδέν, οὐδ᾽ ἔγὼ yap ὁ βλέπων. αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ σ.} If any definite allusion is here intended, it is per- haps to Job i. 6, &c.: but I would rather suppose the practice of Satan in tempting and seducing men to be intended, 14. ayy. φωτός] God is light, and inhabits light, and His angelic attendants are sur- rounded with brightness, see Acts xii. 7 ; Ps. civ. 4: whereas Satan is the Power of darkness, see reff. and Luke xxii. 53. 15.] εἰ καί, if also, i.e. as well as him- self, or perhaps better applying to the whole sentence, if, also... μετασχ. ὡς, i.e. μετασχ. καὶ γίνονται ws:—so Rom. ix. 29, ὡς Γόμοῤῥα ἂν ὡμοιώθημεν. αὐτός, the father of falsehood and wrong (John viii. 44), is directly opposed to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, Matt. vi. 33, that manifestation of God by which He is known to us in the Gospel, Rom. i. 17. ὧν τὸ τέλ. Of whom (notwith- standing this disguise) the end shall be correspondent to their works (not to their pretensions). 16—21.| Excuses for his intended self-boasting. 16.] wahiv—referring to ver. 1, not repeating what he had there said, but again taking up the subject, and expanding that re- quest. The ἀνέχομαι of ver. 1 in fact implies both requests of this verse :—the not regarding him as a fool for boasting, or even if they did (ei δὲ μήγε after a negative sentence implies ‘ but if it cannot be so, ‘if you will not grant this,’ see reff. κἄν elliptical : the full construc- tion would be κἂν ὡς ἄφρονα δέξασθαι δέῃ, δέξασθέ we: so in reff.) as a fool (i. 6. yielding to me the toleration and hearing which men would not refuse even to one of whose folly they were convinced) receiving him. κἀγώ, as well as they. 17.] Proceeding on the ὡς ἄφρονα, he disclaims for this self-boasting the character of inspi- ration—or of being said in pursuance of his [R xi. 14 BDFKL MP[R]s abcde tgh kl mnolj7, 47 Nis(appy) 49 ; IR.) 19 i 14—21. ΄ A 7, “"» / . ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ὑποστάσει τῆς ὅ καυχήσεως. nw \ \ "καυχῶνται "kata ἢ τὴν ἢ ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOTS B. 703 \ 18 ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ toch in ΄ ἣν ἂρ δ τ: : oapkKa, Kay@ > καυχήσομαι. 111. 14. xi. lonly. Ps. xxxviil. 7. ἡδέως γὰρ * ἀνέχεσθε τῶν δ᾽ ἀφρόνων, | φρόνιμοι ὄντες" g Rom. ii. 27 e Lal nw ren. see 20 Κ ἀνέχεσθε yap, εἴ τις ὑμᾶς ™ καταδουλοῖ, εἴ τις © κατεσ - © John viii.15 only. see Rom. i.3 reff. ’ ’ » 7 rs yy ᾽ θίει, εἴ τις ° λαμβάνει, εἴ τις Ῥ ἐπαίρεται, εἴ τις 4 εἰς «πρός- Gat νἱ 8. i Mark vi. 20. ὠπον ὑμᾶς * δέρει. 31 " κατὰ ᾿ ἀτιμίαν λέγω ἃ ὡς ἃ ὅτι ἡμεῖς xi. 37 only. 24. ἰχ. 11. (-διστα, ch. xii. 9.) k ver. 1. iv. 10. m Gal, ii. 4only. Gen. xlvii. 21, Ὁ = ch. xii. 16. only. Isa. ix, 12. h s = 1 Cor. vii. 6. r Acts v. 40 reff. 18. for πολλοί, ολοι P!. Prov. iii. 1 Rom. xi. 25 al. Prov. xv. 21. iron., 1 Cor. n Mark xii. 40||L. Gal. v.15. Rev. xi. 5 p = ch. x. 5 reff. q see Matt. xxvi. 67. t Rom. i. 26 reff. uch.v.19. 2 Thess, ii. 2. om την D'F[R)X! 17 Chr, Damase. 20. rec ὑμας bef εἰς προεώωπον, with D2[-gr] KLM rel am[iz vos faciem(sic, Tischdf) ] Syr goth arm Chr, Thdrt: txt BD!3FPX mo 17 latt syr φῦλ [Euthal-ms] Damase Orig-int, [ Ambrst ]. mission from the Lord. κατὰ kvp.] as in reff., after the (mind of the) Lord, in pur- suance, i. 6. 7m thes case, of θεοπνευστία from above: not asin 1 Cor. vii. 10, 25, 40. ὡς ἐν adp. | as it were in folly, i.e. ‘putting myself into the situation, and speaking the words of a foolish man vaunt- ing of himself,’ ὑποστάσει, as ch. ix. 4,in this present confidence, not as Chrys. ‘ subject, —‘ this subject of boasting,’ iva μὴ νομίσῃς πανταχοῦ ἀνοηταίνειν αὐτόν, (Hom. xxiv. p. 607)—and so al.: but the sense would be insipid in the last degree : nor could such a meaning well be expressed without ye,—ev ταύτῃ ye TH ὑπ. De Wette also renders im. ‘subject-matter,’ and understands, ‘ since we are come to boast- ing ;? but here again ye would be more naturally found. He objects to ‘confidence,’ that the boasting was not begun: but as Meyer replies, it is conceived of as having begun in Paul’s mind, by the use of the present λαλῶ, I am speaking. 18.| Since many (viz. the false teachers, but not only they :—‘since it is a common habit,’—for he is here speaking as εἷς τῶν ἀφρόνων, see Job ii. 10) boast according to the flesh (not = ἐν σαρκί, as Chrys., al., but ‘in a spirit of fleshly regard,’ —‘having regard to their extraction, achievements, &c.’ as below vv. 22 ff.), I also will boast (scil. κατὰ τὴν σάρκα. Rickert thinks these words are omitted purposely, thereby to imply that the Apostle’s boasting was not fleshly ; but this is distinctly contra- dicted by the context: he is speaking as one of the πολλοί of of ἄφρονες, see next verse), 19.] Bitterly ironical. They were φρόνιμοι--ἂβ 1 Cor. iv. 8, κεκορεσ- μένοι----80 full of wisdom as to be able to tolerate complacently, looking down from the ‘sapientum templa serena,’ the follies of others. This, forsooth, encourages him to hope for their forbearance and patron- age. Compare the earnestness of 1 Cor. iii. 1—4, And the irony does not stop here: it is not only matter of presump- tion that they would tolerate fools with complacency, but the matter of fact testi- fied it: they were doing this: and more. 20.| for (proof that they could have no objection to so innocent a man as a fool, when they tolerated such noxious ones as are adduced) ye endure (them), if (as is the case) one brings you into slavery (the mere abstract act as regarded them, not the man’s own selfish view, being in the Apostle’s mind, the active, not the middle, is used. Thucyd. iii. 70, uses the active similarly : λέγοντες τοὺς ᾿Αθη- ναίους τὴν Κέρκυραν καταδουλοῦν. But the enslaving understood, is to the man himself, not to the law :—-see ref. Gal.), if one devours you (by exaction on your pro- perty, see reff. Mk. L. So Hom. Od. γ. 315: μή τοι κατὰ πάντα φάγωσι κτήματα, and Plaut., Ter., and Quintil., in Wetstein), if one catches you (as with a snare, ref.: not, ‘takes from you’), if one uplifts himself (so freq. in Thucyd., e. g. vi. 11, χρὴ μὴ πρὸς τὰς τύχας τῶν ἐναντίων ἐπαίρεσθαι. See other examples in Wetst.), if one smites you on the face (in insult, see 1 Kings xxii. 24: Matt. v. 59; Luke xxll. 64; Acts xxiii. 2. This is put as the climax of forbearance. “That such vio- lence might literally be expected from the rulers of the early Christian society, is also implied in the command in 1 Tim. iii. 3, Tit. i. 7, that the ‘bishop’ is not to be ‘a. striker.’ Even so late as the seventh cen- tury the council of Braga (c. 7), A.D. 675, orders that no bishop at his will and pleasure shall strike his clergy, lest he lose the respect which they owe him.” Stanley). 21.] By way of disparagement (κατ᾽ ἄτιμ.,---80 κατὰ ληΐην ἐκπλώσαντες, Herod. ii. 152; κατὰ θέαν ἧκεν, Thucyd. vi. 31) I assume that (ὡς ὅτι, see ch. v. 19, note,——does not positively state a fact, but assumes one, or states the import of a say- ing) WE (emphatic) were weak (when we were among you). An ironical reminis- cence of his own abstinence when ameng 704 v -- Rom. iv, 19 reff. w ver. 12. x = ch. x. 2. y ver. 17. z Acts vi. 1. Phil. ii. 5 bis only. Gen. xxxix. 14 al. a John i. 48. Acts ii. 22. Rom. xi. 1 al. ἃ here only. Zech. vii. 11 only. (-vta, 2 Pet. ii. 16.) ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. b Rom. ix. 7 reff. ΧΙ. ec Col. ἱ. 7. 1 Tim. iv. 6. see ch. vi. 4. e as adv., here only. Winer, edn. 6, ᾧ 50; Remark 2. 21. ησθενησαμεν bef ques Εἰ ποὺ F-lat]: ησθενηκαμεν BX m [17(Griesb)] 80 [Euthal-ms ].—add ev tovrw tw μερει D vulg-ed [demid ](not am fuld [tol]) Ambrst. om δ᾽ D}(and lat) vulg syrr Ambrst. F-lat].—om 2nd Aeyw N!(ins X-corr! 901), them from all these acts of self-exaltation at their expense, q. d. (ironically), ‘ I feel that Iam much letting myself down by the confession that J was too weak ever to do any of these things among you. This I believe with Schrader, De Wette, and Meyer, to be the only satisfactory render- ing. See also Stanley. Most expositors (1) refer λέγω back to ver. 20, ‘I say it,’ — ‘I speak, as E. V. So Chrys., Theo- phyl., Theodoret, Pelag., Erasm., Calv., al. (Chrys. remarks on ὡς ὅτι,--ὠσαφὲς τὸ εἰρημένον. ἐπειδὴ yap φορτικὸν ἦν, διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως αὐτὸ τέθεικεν, ἵνα κλέψῃ τὴν ἐπάχθειαν τῇ ἀσαφείᾳ, p. 609), and (2) understand κατὰ atim., ‘to your shame,’ and (3) ὡς ὅτι, ‘as though.” But (1) can hardly be, seeing that λέγω below and λαλῶ ver. 23 have a forward reference: (2) would require ὑμῶν, and even then would be exceedingly harsh,—ef. the simi- lar meaning 1 Cor. xv. 34, where we have πρὸς ἐντροπὴν ὑμῖν λαλῶ : and (3) it may be doubted whether ὧς ὅτι ever can mean ‘as though, even in ref. 2 Thess., where Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 9 (see German edn.), renders it by wie daf: it is pleo- nastic, answering to our expression ‘ how that’—I told him, how that’.... Winer, in a former edition, instances the use of wie Daf in a somewhat similar way: wie das id) gehort habe, .... where either wie or δαβ would be enough. Besides the instances given on ch. v. 19, Meyer quotes from Dion. Hal. ix. (with no further ref.) ἐπιγνούς, ὡς ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάτοις εἰσὶν of κατα- κλεισθέντες. ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ ἄν] But in whatsoever matter any one (the τις of ver. 20) is bold (the ἄν signifies habit, recurrence: so Soph. Philoct. 290, ταῦτ᾽ ἂν ἐξέρπων τάλας éunxaveunv' εἶτα πῦρ ἂν οὐ παρῆν, and Eur. Phen. 412, ποτὲ μὲν ἐπ’ ἦμαρ εἶχον, εἶτ᾽ οὐκ εἶχον ἄν, where see Porson). Throughout this pas- sage, compare by all means Stanley’s in- teresting notes. ἐν adp.] see ver. bye 22.| “The three honourable appellations with which the adversaries magnified themselves,—resting on their Jewish extraction, are arranged so as to form a climax: so that Ἑ βραῖοι refers to ToAuw καγω bef ev app. Aeyw ΕἾ ποῦ the nationality,—Icpanatra to the theo- cracy (Rom. ix. 4 th), and σπέρμα ’ABp. to the claim to a part in the Messiah (Rom. ix. 7; xi. 1, al.).” Meyer. The interrogative form of the sentence is much more lively and consistent with the spirit of the context than the affirmative, as given by Erasm., Luther, Estius, al. 23. | Meyer remarks, that all three points. of Judaistic comparison, of so little real con- sequence in the matter, were dismissed with the short and contemptuous κἀγώ, --- ‘that am I too. But that is not enough, now that we are come to the great point or comparison; the consciousness of his real standing, and their nullity as ministers of Christ requires the ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, and the hely earnestness of this consciousness pours itself forth as a stream over the adver- saries, so as to overwhelm their conceited aspirations to apostolic dignity. παραφρ. A. | stronger than ev ἄφροσ. λέγω: —TI say it as a madman. Hardly, as Meyer, spoken from a consciousness of the verdict mapappovet which the opponents would pronounce on this ὑπὲρ éyé,—but rather, as De W., from a deep sense of his own unworthiness, and conscious how ut- terly untrue was ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, in any boasting sense. He therefore repudiates it even more strongly than the τολμῶ κἀγώ. ὑπὲρ ἐγώ must not be misunderstood. He concedes to them their being didk xp., and assumes (παραφρονῶν) for himself, some- thing more, if more abundant labours and sufferings are to be any criterion of the matter. That this is the sense is obvious from the comparison being in the amount of labours and sufferings,—and not (as Meyer), that he denies to them the διάκ. xp. and merely puts it hypothetically. ‘Well, then, if they are to be considered dick. χρ., L must be something more. If so, the comparison would be not in the degree of ministerial self-sacrifice, but in the credentials of the ministry itself. Both are now assumed to be ministers: but if so, Paul is a minister in a much higher degree, more faithful, more self- denying, richer in gifts and divine tokens, than they.. The preposition is used ad- Y ἠσθενήσαμεν" “ev ᾧ δ᾽ av τις * τολμᾷ, (" ἐν ¥ ἀφροσύνῃ ΒΡΡΚΙ, / x ς A eel: 99 2° A099 31 Lae a? PRab λέγω) * τολμῶ κἀγώ. “25: KRpatot εἰσιν; κἀγώ. * lopanr- cae fg a / > 3 > / b / "A / , > , Wes / irat εἰσιν; Kayo. σπέρμα Αβραάμ εἰσιν; Kayo. ιάκο- c “~ > a d A an e « \ > ee > vou “ χριστοῦ εἰσιν; (* παραφρονῶν λαλῶ) " ὑπὲρ ἐγώ" ἐν hkimn ο 17.47 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 705 , , ~ “ Γ κόποις " περισσοτέρως, ἐν ἢ φυλακαῖς " περισσοτέρως, ἐν τ ch. νἱ. 5. fk πληγαῖς ᾿ ὑπερβαλλόντως, ἐν ™ θανάτοις g 1 Cor. iii. 8. xv. 58 al. Gen. xxxi. 42, ch. i. 12 reff. πολλάκις. ὍΝ ΒΞ, | 5 / ΄ n , Ἂ \ ᾽ h UTTO OVOALWY TEVTUKLS TECOOEPAKOVTA Tapa MLD i Matt. xxv. 36, ἔλαβον, 35 τρὶς PépaBdicOnv, ἅπαξ « ἐλιθάσθην, τρὶς 35. r 2 7 5 ‘¢ 5 ἐναυάγησα, “νυχθήμερον ἐν we / A 26 ν ὁδοιπορίαις πολλάκις, “ κινδύνοις * ποταμῶν, only. (- βάλλειν, ch. iii. 10 ) &c. Heb. xi. k Luke x. 30. ied a 4 xii. 48. Act τῷ ᾿βυθῷ "πεποίηκα: Ἐπ Deut. xxv. 2. Ww Κιν- Vhere only. Job xv. 11 m= ch.i.10. Ps. ly. 13. see 1 Cor. xv. 31. προαπο- θνήσκω πολλοὺς θανάτους ὑπομένων ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς τοῦ τελευταίου, Philo, Flacc. ᾧ 20, vol. ii. p. 542. nellips. of πληγ.; see Luke xii. 47, 48. xvi. 22 only}. Judg. vi. 11. s here only t. xv. 33 reff. i. 2, ῥαντ. atm. 23. for λαλω, Aeyw DF e Did). bef εν φυλακαῖς περισσ., with D?{-gr] q Acts v. 26 reff. t here only. Exod. xv. 5. Ps. evi. 24. (-θίζειν, Luke v. 7.) v John iv. 6 only +. 1 Mace. vi. 41, (-ρεῖν, Acts x. 9.) (8 times) and Rom. viii. 35 only. Ps. exiv. 3. (-νεύειν, 1 Cor. xy. 30.) kovots F(not G). KLMRN? rel syrr copt arm Orig, Chr, Thdrt o = here only. Herod. ix. 33. p Acts rl Tim. i. 19 only +. u — Acts w here x gen., = 1 Pet. rec ev πληγαις ὑπερβ. Damase, and F{-gr(and G-lat)] δὲ! Orig, [Hil,], which (and P) put περισσ. with mAny. and ὑπερβ. with ovA.: om ev TA. υπ. Clem [Euthal-ms] Tert: txt B D!(and lat) (P) [17] vulg(and F-lat) goth eth Orig, [Ambrst Aug, ]. πολλοις D}j -gr 25. rec eppaBd., with M rel Chr (Thdrt Damasc]}: txt BDFKLPX [acd fkmn o | 17. 47 Orig, Eus, Chr-ms Thi Cc. 26. for πολλακις (and in next ver), πολλαὶς D}(with lat) ; so also vulg [F-lat Syr] in ver 27 [twice]. verbially, see reff. ἐν κόποις TeEpLG. | By (the év is instrumental [in (the matter of’) or, by (virtue of) ]:—the direct dative is adopted ver. 26 :—these facts are proofs of the ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, ποῦ as KEstius, al., parallel with it, which would only apply to the comparatives and not to ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις) labours (occurring) more abun- dantly (the adverbs belong to the sub- stantives in each case and are used adjectively; so τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν πότε, Gal. i. 13: τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν, Phil. i. 26),—by prisons (impri- sonments) more abundantly (but ove such is mentioned in the Acts (xvi. 23 ff.) pre- vious to the writing of this Epistle. Clement, in the celebrated passage of his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (6. v. p. 220) on the labours of Paul, describes him as ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ popécas. ‘This whole cata- logue should shew the chronologists of the Apostle’s life and epistles how exceedingly unsafe it is to build only on the history in the Acts for a complete account of his journeys and voyages), by stripes more exceedingly (particularized below), by deaths often (see reff. and ch. iv. 10. Such was the danger escaped at Damascus, Acts ix. 23, at Antioch in Pisidia, xiii. 50, at Iconium, xiv. 5, 6, at Lystra, ib. 19, at Philippi, xvi., at Thessalonica, xvii. 5 f., at Berea, ib. 13, and doubtless many others of which we know nothing. See below). 24, 25.] are parenthetical, explain- ing some of the foregoing expressions: the construction is resumed, ver. 26. At the hands of the Jews five times re- ceived I forty save one (in Deut. xxv. 3, it is prescribed that not more than forty Vou, If, stripes should be given, ‘lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee.” For fear of exceeding this number, they kept within it. This seems a more likely account of the thirty-nine stripes than that given by Wetst.,—that thirteen were inflicted on the breast, and the same number on each shoulder, and the fortieth omitted, lest one part of the body should receive more than another. See the Rabbinical authorities in Wetst., and ef. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 21 and 28, and Stanley’s note here. He calls it τιμωρία αἰσχίστη : and Meyer remarks that Paul might well number it among the θάνατοι, for it was no rare occurrence for the criminal to die under its infliction. None of these scourgings are mentioned in the Acts),—thrice was I beaten with rods (scil. by the Roman magistrates, see Acts xvi. 22, 28, which is the only occasion mentioned in the Acts), once was I stoned (Acts xiv. 19), thrice I suffered shipwreck (not one of these shipwrecks is known to us. ‘Thus we see that perhaps three, per- haps two, voyages of Paul, but certainly ~ -one,— previous to this time, must be some- where inserted in the history of the Acts: see Prolegg. ch. iii. § v. 5), a night and day have I spent (reff.) in the deep (i.e. the sea: probably on some remnant of a wreck after one of his shipwrecks alone or with others. To understand 6 βυθός, as ΤΊ]. (τινὲς δέ φασιν ἔν τινι φρέατι μετὰ τὸν ἐν Λύστροις κίνδυνυν κατακρυφθείς, βύθῳ λεγομένῳ, νῦν τοῦτο λέγει), seems to be taking it out of its connexion here. Wetst. gives from lian, H. An. viii. 7, ἀθέατον νήχεσθαι ἐν βυθῷ. Still less must we think of the characteristic interpretation ZZ 706 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. eB yEpp.,here δύνοις Ἧ λῃστῶν, “ κινδύνοις ἐκ 7 γένους, “ κινδύνοις ἐξ BDFKL only. ΒΡ :9 “Ἂς " ὃ 7 3 , ΄ 3 a2 7 MPxrab xu si ἐθνῶν, “ κινδύνοις ἐν πόλει, “ κινδύνοις ἐν * ἐρημίᾳ, « ἀ οἴᾳ Vii. al. , , b) hkl 2 ictsavii, “ κινδύνοις ἐν θαλάσσῃ, “ κινδύνοις ἐν ὃ ψευδαδέλφοις, 017. 47 2 reff. absol., ὡς ΟΥ̓ cd , \ , > > ' / > 2Mace. xii, “ἱ © ce d “ay acc. XU KOTT@ Kat μόχθῳ, εν αγρυπνίιαις πολλάκις, εν Matt. xv. fe ἊΝ λ f 2 / ΄ ΡΝ, , \ aise Heb. [5 λιμῷ καὶ 8" δίψει, ἐν ἃ νηστείαις πολλάκις, ἐν } ψύχει καὶ xi. 38 only. De ΦΘΊΟΜΑΥ͂. fok , 98 1 \ a m \ Cin pee / Ezek. xxxv.4. *© ULVOTNTL. ~ l K bGaLiv4d δ μ ” X@pP S TMV παρε TOS) δ ETT LOTAGLS only +. ΟἹ Thess. ii. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 8 only. ἃ ch. vi. 5 (reff.). e as above (c) only. Num. xsiii. 21. f Deut. xxviii. 48 only. g Rom. viii. 35. h here only. kxod. xvii. 3. i John xviii. 18. Acts xxviii. 2 only. Gen. vii. 22. k as above (f,g). Rev. iii. 18 only. 1 = Matt. xiv. 21. (Heb. iv. 15.) Gen. xxvi. 1. m Matt, v. 32. Acts xxvi. 29only+. Deut. i. 36 Aq. constr., here only. n Acts xxiv. 12 onlyt. = 2 Mace. vi. 3? (only.) ἐπισύσ., (Acts as above, vy. r.) Num. xxvi. 9. 27. rec ins ev bef κοπω, with KLMP X-corr'(?)3 rel vulg(and F-lat) Orig,(-int,) [Bas, Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase Ambrst Aug,]: om BD F/-gr] &! goth. διψὴ ΒΙ g? 1 (Orig, ]. 28. ree εἐπισυστασις, with KLMP rel Chr,(explaining it: of θόρυβοι, ai tapaxal, ai πολιορκίαι τῶν δήμων καὶ τῶν πόλεων ἔφοδοι. So also Thdrt al) Damase: txt BDER of Estius: “Subjunxit aliud periculum marinum longe gravius, nempe quod de- mersus fuerit ex naufragio in profundum maris, ubi tamen divina ope fuerit servatus incolumis noctem et diem, atque inde postea liberatus ”). 26.] The construc- tion is resumed from ver. 23, but now with the instrumental dative without the preposition. By journeys frequently, by perils of rivers (the genitives denote the material of the perils; rivers and rob- bers being the things and persons actually attacking. Winer, edn. 6, § 30. 2 [a], renders it perils on rivers, justifying it by κ. ἐν πόλει: but in my view a distinc- tion is pointed out by the variety of con- struction. Wetst. quotes κινδ, θαλασσῶν from Heliod. ii. 4. The ‘perils of rivers’ might arise from crossing or fording, or from floods. ‘The crossing of the rocky and irregular torrents in Alpine districts is to this day attended with danger, which must have been much more frequent when bridges were comparatively rare. And this is the case with a road, among others, fre- quently traversed by Paul, that between Jerusalem and Antioch, crossed as it is by the torrents from the.sides of Lebanon. Manudrell says that the traveller Spon lost his life in one of those torrents: see Cony- beare and Howson, edn. 2, vol. i. p. 502, note: and Stanley’ in loc.), by perils of robbers (see note on Acts xiii. 14), by perils from my kindred (the Jewish na- tion, ἐκ, arising from: they not being always the direct agents,—but, as in mapy cases in the Acts, setting on others or plotting secretly: or yévouvs,—and ἐθν. below,—imports generically the source, or quarter whence the danger arose), by perils from the Gentiles (not merely “from Gentiles,” as Stanley: this would be ἐξ ἐθνικῶν. The art. is omitted after the preposition, the word being thus cate- govized in Greek; but it must be supplied in our English idiom), by perils in the city (in Damascus, Acts ix. 23 f.,—Jeru- salem, ib. 29,—Ephesus xix. 23 ff., and many other places), by perils in the desert (the actual desert ? or merely the solitude of journeys as contrasted with ‘ the city ἢ’ but any how, not ‘in solitude: the art. must be supplied as in ἐν πόλει), by perils in the sea (not, as De W., a repetition from ver. 25: there are many perils in the sea short of shipwrecks), by perils among false brethren (who were these? Grot., al., suppose, ‘qui Christianos se simula- bant, ut res Christianorum perdiscerent, deinde eos proderent,’—and so apparently Chrys., &. But Paul’s use of this com- pound leads us rather to persons who bona fide wished to be thought ἀδελφοί, but were not, scil. in heart and conduct, and were opponents of himself personally, rather than designed traitors to the Chris- tian cause. Cf. ψευδαπόστολοι above, ver. 13) ; 27.] by labour and weariness, by watchings (see on ch. vi. 5) frequently (the ἐν is here resumed, perhaps arbi- trarily, perhaps also because κόπος and μόχθος are more directly instrumental, —aypumv., &c., more conditionally), by hunger and thirst, by fastings frequently (voluntary fastings, ‘ad purificandam mentem et edomandam carnem,’ as Es- tius, see also ch. vi. 5 note. De W. here too (see also Stanley) holds to ‘involun- tary fastings;’? but he is clearly wrong, for vnor. is distinguished from Am. κ. δίψ.), in cold and nakedness (insuffi- cient clothing :—or, literally, when thrust into prison after his scourgings,—or after his shipwrecks). 28.) He passes from particulars, omitting others which might have been specified, to the weight of apostolic care and sympathy which was on him. Not to mention those (afflictions) which are besides (these) (the Vulg., E. V., Beza, Estius, Bengel, under- 27—30. ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 107 ΄ ᾿] ΄ ,ὔὕ ς ,ὔ lal »“ nn os μοι ἡ ° καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, ἡ Ρ μέριμνα 1 πασῶν TOV 4 ἐκκλησιῶν. ° Acts ti 4 / » lal \ > a 29 τίς τ ἀσθενεῖ, Kal οὐκ 1 ἀσθενῶ; τίς " σκανδαλίζεται, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ " πυροῦμαι ; 80 Ki ἡ καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ, YY τὰ ν᾿ τῆς 4 ch. viii. 18 reff. t 1 Cor, vii. 9 reff. w constr., ch. ix. 2. rec (for μοι) μου, with D[-gr] KLMPN% rel vulg[(and F-lat) Ambrst]: txt B F[-gr] 8! 17 [Euthal-ms, in me D-lat Augs]. only. Sir. xlii. 9, s 1 Cor. viii. 13 reff. Rom, xiv. 19 al. k 17 [Euthal-ms]. (not G), for καθ. nu. ἡ, καθημερινὴ F. stand παρεκτός as = ἔξωθεν, ‘the things that are without,—a meaning which it never has, always implying exception, see reff. Chrys., a., join xwp. τ. παρεκτ. with the foregoing, and put a period after mapekr., interpreting it rightly, πλείονα τὰ παραλειφθέντα τῶν ἄπαριθμηθέντων, Hom. xxv. p. 613:—but this seems to break the connexion too abruptly, besides giving a strange and unlikely termination to the long sentence preceding),—my care (ἐπίστ. _ may be either “ delay,’ ‘hindrance,’ as Soph. Antig. 225, πολλὰς γὰρ εἶχον φροντίδος ἐπιστάσεις, and Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 26, ὅσον ᾿ἂν χρόνον τὸ ἡγούμενον τοῦ στρατεύματος ἐπιστήσειε, τοσοῦτον ἦν ἀνάγκη χρόνον BL ὅλου τοῦ στρατεύματος γίγνεσθαι τὴν ἐπί- στασιν,---ΟΥὉἃ as very frequently in Polybius, see Schweigh., Lex. Polyb.,—< care,’ ‘ at- tention,’ ‘ matter of earnest thought :᾿ e. g. τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὅλων ἐπίστασιν κ. διάληψιν, viii. 20. 13, ‘curam summe ΤῸ], -τοοὺκ ἐκ παρέργου, ἄλλ᾽ ἐξ ἐπιστάσεως, ili. 58. 3,— ἄγειν τινὰ εἰς ἐπίστασιν, ‘attentionem ali- cujus excitare,’ ix. 22. 17, al. The ree. reading, ἐπισύστασις (which has perhaps been introduced from ἐπίστασις not being understood (see digest here and on ref. Acts) and then wo has been altered to μου as easier; but substantives derived from verbs which govern a dative are sometimes followed by this case, see Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 3, and Moulton’s note), can only mean coneursus, in a hostile sense, see ref. and examples in Wetst.: and so Chrys. (see var. readd.), &c., take it here: others metaphorically, as Beza, ‘agmen illud in me quotidie con- surgens, i.e. sollicitudo de omnibus eccle- 5118 :-—somewhat similarly De W.,—*‘ that which sets upon me, importunes me, daily :’ and so E. V. Stanley, with Est. al., ren- ders it, the concourse of people to see me:’ but this is doubtful, as departing from the hostile sense. In Beza’s sense, there is something Pauline in the rec., ‘the daily outbreak against me,’ and the reading cannot be considered certain) day by day, (viz.) my anxiety for all the churches (the construction is an anacoluthon: not, as Meyer, ἐπίστ. the subject and μέριμνα, the predicate, which would be a very flat sentence,—‘ my daily care is, anxiety Xe. As it stands, ἡ ἐπίστ. is general, and p and constr., Matt. xiii. 22 || (Luke xxi. 34. 1 Pet. v. 7) r = Acts xx. 35, or Rom. xiv. 1. u absol., vv. 16, 18. y constr., Proy. xxvii. 1. om Ist 7 F! ἢ μέριμν. particularizes it. Nothing need be supplied. ἡ ἐπίστ. occurs to the Apos- tle’s mind, and is uttered, in the nomina- tive, the construction being disregarded), 29.] ‘Cura certe συμπάθειαν ge- nerat: que facit, ut omnium affectus in se suscipiat Christi minister, omnium per- sonas induat, quo se accommodet om- nibus,’ Calv. Olsh., after Emmerling, strangely understands, ‘ Who is weak, if 1 am not weak? i.e.‘ Who can be called weak, if I am not 50 ἢ ἢ The ἀσθένεια of the τις may be in various ways; in faith, as Rom. xiv. 1 al., or in purpose, or in courage: that of the Apostle, see 1 Cor. ix. 22, was a sympathetic weakness, a lean- ing to the same infirmity for the weak brother’s sake, but also a veritable θορυ- βοῦμαι x. ταράσσομαι (as Chrys., p. 614) in himself, on the weak brother’s account. τίς oxavd.| “ Non priore, sed hac versiculi parte addit ego : nam illic infirmo se accommodat: hic dissimilem se scan- dalizantis fatetur, partes a scandalizante neglectas scandalizati causa 7pse suscipiens. Partes a scandalizante neglectz sunt amor, prudentia, &c. Idem tamen Paulus etiam partes scandalizati, sive incommodum quod scandalizatus sentit, in se suscipit.” Bengel. awupovpat,—with zeal, or with indignation. 30.] partly refers back to what has passed since ver. 23. The ἀσθένεια not being that mentioned in a different connexion in ver. 29, but that of ver. 21, to which all since has applied. But the words are not without a forward reference likewise. He will boast of his weaknesses—of (τὰ τῆς ἄσθ.) those things which made him appear mean and con- temptible in the eyes of his adversaries. He is about to adduce an instance of es- cape from danger, of which this is emi- nently the case: he might be scoffed at as 6 capyavopdpntos, or the like—but he is carried on in his fervency of self-renun- ciation amidst his apparent self-celebration, and he will even cast before his enemies the contemptible antecedents of his career, boasting in being despised, if only for what Christ had done in him. The as- severation in ver. 81 may be applied to the whole, but I had rather view it as con- nected with the strange history about to be related :—‘I will glory in my weaknesses ZZ ἃ ΠΡΟΣ KOFINOIOTS B. ΧΙ. 31—35. ΕΞ ΄ e > . \ “ P _ 3 éoCeveras μου ἡ καυχήσομαι" 31 ὁ %* θεὸς καὶ ¥ πατὴρ τοῦ BNFKL 1 Cor. ii. 3 , 3 a ΤΟΝ ἀπ ts δ ee Le See MPNab re, κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἷδεν, ὁ ὧν * εὐλογητὸς 5 εἰς τοὺς * αἰῶνας, c dere _ hkima ref. Σ ο 17. 47 2 Rom. ix. 5 ὅτου οὐ ὑψεύδομαι. * ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὁ " ἐθνάρχης “Apéta ὁ τε ἀπά οῖς, TOD βασιλέως * ἐφρούρει τὴν πόλιν Δαμασκηνῶν * πιάσαι ) FLOM. 1x. ett. ΄ ‘ \ We ve , > ΄ Β 2 ἢ tee cnirt. μὲ [θέλων], 35 Kat διὰ θυρίδος ἐν 8 σαργάνῃ ἐχα- i acc. XIV, ,ὔ Ν Lal > A wn λάσθην ὃ διὰ τοῦ ὃ τείχους καὶ 'e€eduvyov tas χεῖρας αὑτοῦ. 47. απ 1,2 only. Jos. Antt.xiv.7' ΧΤ] 1* * Καυχᾶσθαι δὴ ob | συμφέρει mou ἐλεύσομαι ἃ Gal. iii. 23. Phil. iv.7. 1 Pet.i.Sonly+. Judith iii. 6. i. 15 g here only +. , ‘ I constr., but w. aor. inf., Matt. xix. 10. e Acts xii. 4 reff. h Acts ix. 25 (reff.). Esth. i. 8. f Acts xx. 9 only. Josh. ii. 15, 18. i Rom. ii. 3 reff. k absol., ch. xi. 16, 18, 30 30. om μου B. 31. ree aft κυρίου ins ἡμων, with DMP rel vulg(with [demid] fuld F-lat) Syr ecopt arm Thdrt [Euthal-ms Ambrst] Augyaticy: om ΒΕ ΚΙ δὲ e g h 1 m n 17 am syr goth eth Chr,[and 2-mss| Damase. ree aft ino. ins χριστου, with DK LMP rel vulg(with [demid] fuld F-lat) Syr copt eth Thdrt [Euthal-ms Damase Ambrst} Aug: om BFR m 17 am syr goth arm Chr{and ms]. 32. rec δαμασκηνων bef πολιν, with D?[-gr] KLM rel Chr, Thdrt Damase: txt BD!3F PX a m 17 [latt arm]. om θελων B D}(and lat) vulg(and F-lat) Syr arm Procop, Ambrst Pel: ins D?[-gr] KLMPR rel goth Chr, { Euthal-ms Damase]| Thdrt, and (but bef πιασαι we) F[-gr(and G-lat)] syr copt eth. 33. om ev σαργανὴ ΕἾ -51]. Cuap. XII. 1. * καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ οὐ συμφέρον μὲν ἐλευσομαι δὲ Bisee table) F(&) 17 vulg: so, but σναφερει, P: καυχασθαι δὴ ov συμφερει μοι ελευσομαι yap (D)KL rel Chr Thdrt [Thl] @e.—ins εἰ bef καυχ. &* 39 lect-17 vulg(and F-lat) [Euthal-ms Ambrst].—de: (on the confusion between ἡ and εἰ of Tischdf N. T. (ed. 7) prolegg. p. xxxvii) B D3fand lat] FLP de f g mno [17] vulg syrr goth [ Euthal-ms Ambrst]: δὲ D}{-gr] δὲ copt Thl: 5) KM 47 Ath, Chr Tndrt Damase [Ec }.—om μοι D!(-gr} Syr goth. (M uncert.)—add καὶ B 213. —yea, and I will yet more abase my- self—God knows that I am telling sober truth—&e.’ If the solemnity of the as- severation seem out of proportion to the incident, the fervid and impassioned cha- racter of the whole passage roust be taken into account. It will be seen that I differ from all Commentators here, and cannot but think that they have missed the con- nexion. Meyer supposes that vv. 32, 33 were only the beginning of a catalogue of his escapes, which he breaks off at ch. xii. 1: and that the asseveration was meant to apply to the whole catalogue : but surely this is very unnatural. - 82, 33.] On the fact, and historical dif- ficulty, see note, Acts ix. 24. 32. | ἐν Aap. followed by Δαμασκηνῶν is pleo- nastic, but the pleonasm is common enough, especially when for any reason, our words are more than usually precise and formal. ἐθνάρχης Prefect, or governor, stationed there by the Arabian king. The title appears to have been variously used. The High Priest Simon, as a vassal of Syria, is so named in reff. 1 Mace., and Jos. Antt. xiii. 6.7. It was bestowed by Augustus on Archelaus after his father’s death, Jos. Antt. xvii. 11. 4; B. J. ii.6. 3. The presidents of the seven districts into which Egypt was divided under the Romans, bore it (Strabo, xvii. 798): as did a petty prince of the Bospo- rus under Augustus (Lucian, Macrob. 17). Also the chief magistrates of the Jews liv- ing under their own laws in foreign states had this title (Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. 2; xiv. 8. 5. B. J. vii. 6.3). But apparently it must here be taken in its wider sense, and net in this latter: for the mere chief magis- trate of the Jews would not have had the power of guarding the city. Doubtless he was incited by the Jews, who would repre- sent Paul as a malefactor. σαργάνη.. κόφινος, Hesych.;—oi μέν, σχοίνιόν τι, οἱ δὲ πλέγμα τι ἐκ cxowiov. Suidas (see Wetst.), = σπυρίς, Acts ix. 25. Probably it is, as Stanley, a “rope-basket;” a net. Cuap. XII. 1—10.] He proceeds to speak of visions and revelations vouchsafed to him, and relates one such, of which however he will not boast, except in as far as it leads to fresh mention of infirmity, m which he will boast, as being a vehicle for the perfection of Christ's power. In order to understand the connexion of the follow- ing, it is very requisite to bear in mind the burden of the whole, which runs through it _—é€y ταῖς ἀσθενείαις καυχήσομαι. There is no break between this and the last chap- ter. He has just mentioned a passage of his history which might expose him to con- STs I, 2: ma , ᾿ οπτασίιας Kab γὰρ εἰς iii. 3. Sir. xliii. 2, 16 only. note}, Rev. i. 1 (Gal. i. 127) only. o see 2 Tim. 1.9. Tit.i.2. John xii. 1. aft es ins tas P: ra(sic) F. tempt and ridicule—this was one of the ἀσθένεια. He now comes to another: but that other inseparably connected with, and forming the sequel of, a glorious reve- lation vouchsafed him by the Lord. This therefore he relates, at the same time repu- diating it as connected with Azmse/f, aud fixing attention only °n the ἀσθένεια which followed it. 1. (I have in recent editions suspended the very difficult ques- tion of this reading, not finding it possible to decide whether of the two deserves a place in the text. Meantime, the ree. is left in, and on it the following note is written.) Let only the two readings καυχᾶσθαι δὴ oF συμφέρει μοι. ἐλεύσομαι yap, and καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ, οὐ συμφέρον μέν" ἐλεύσομαι δέ, be compared, and it would certainly seem as if the former more re- sembled the nervous elliptie irony of the great Apostle, and the latter the tame conventioral propriety of the grammatical correctors. ‘The other variations, δέ for δή, and the prefixing of ei, are too palpable emen:lations to require critical treatment. The difficulty however is considerably less- ened, when the right connexion is borne in mind. To boast, verily, is not to my advantage: for (i.e. it will be shewn to be so, byt the following fact of a correction administered to me ἵνα ph ὑπεραίρωμαι) (on the other reading, I must boast, though it is not to my advantage: but) I will proceed to visions and revelations of the Lord. δή in this sense implies a consciousness of a reason why the asser- tion is true, and is therefore naturally fol- lowed by γάρ, if the sentence is completed. The same sense is found in Plato, Phed. p- 60, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὕστατον δὴ σὲ zpos- ἐροῦσι νῦν οἱ ἐπιτήδειοι, καὶ σὺ τούτου-.-- the completion of the sense being,—‘ for you are to die to-night :᾿ -- πολλοὶ κακῶς πράσσουσιν, ov σὺ δὴ μόνος, Eur. Hee. 464: i.e. οὐ σὺ δὴ μόνος κακῶς πράσσει, πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄλλοι. ... (See Hartung, Partikellehre i. 270, who however explains é7 in these examples somewhat differently.) The force of it here then, is: “Zam well aware that to beast is not good fur me: Sor I will come to an instance in which it was so shewn to me.” eis ὀπτ. κ. ἀπ. κυρ. q.d. ‘and the instances I will select are just of that kind in which, if boasting ever were good, it might be al- lowed ? thus the yap gives a more com- plete proof. ὀπτασία is the form or man- ’ " ἀποκαλύψεις κυρίου. M 93 “ρο \ 3 ~ ὃ / yy ἄνθρωπον εν χρίστῳ 77 po ETD) εκατεσσαρων (εἴτε = Dan. ix. 23 al. Theod. Amos i. 1. iv. 7. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 709 δ - =: οἶδα m Luke i. 22. 5 xxiv.23. Acts Ρ εν — 15 only. L.Pj~ Mal n = 1 Cor. xiv. 6 reff. w. gen. subj. (see (obj., 1 Cor, i 7. 2 Thess. i. 7. 1 Pet. 3.7, 13. δε xke 2) pch.v.6. Heb. xiii. - for xup., χριστου ΕἾ not F-lat]. (P uncert.) ner of receiving ἀποκάλυψις, the revela- tion. There can hardly be an ὀπτασία without an ἀπυκάλυψις of some kind. Therefore Theophylact’s distinction is scarcely correct, 7 ἀποκάλυψις πλέον τι ἔχει τῆς ὀπτασίας: pey yap μόνον βλέπειν δίδωσιν: αὕτη δὲ καί τι βαθύτερον τοῦ δρωμένου ἀπογυμνοῖ. κυρίου, gen. subj , vouchsafed me by the Lord,— not obj., ‘of [i.e. revealing] the Lord’ jas the subject of the vision], for such is not that which follows. No particular polemical reason, as the practice of par- ticular parties at Corinth to allege visions, &c. (Baur), need be sought forthe narration of this vision: Paul’s object is general, and the means taken to attain it are simply subordinate to it, viz. the vindication of his apostolic character. 2—4.) An ex- ample of such a vision and revelation. The adoption of the third person is re- markable: it being evident from ver. 7 that he himself is meant. It is plain that a contrast is intended between the rapt and glorified person of vv. 2, 4,—and himself, the weak and afflicted and almost despuair- ing subject of the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί of vv. 7 ff. Such glory delonged not to him, but the weakness did. Nay, so far was the glory from being Ais, that he knew not whether he was in or out of the body when it was put upon him: so that the ἐγὼ αὐτός, compounded of the νοῦς and σάρξ (Rom. vii. 25), clearly was not the subject of it, but as it were another form of his person- ality, analogous to that which we shall assume when unclothed of the body. It may be remarked in passing, as has been done by Whitby, that the Apostle here by implication acknowledges the possibility of consciousness and receptivity in @ disembodied state. Let it not be for- gotten, that in the context, this vision is introduced not so much for the purpose of making it a ground of boasting, which he does only passingly and under protest, but that he may by it introduce the mention of the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, which bore so conspicuous a@ part in his ἀσθένειαι, TO BOAST OF WHICH is his present object. 2.) I know (not, ‘knew,’ as E. V.: which [is a mistake in grammar, and] in- troduces serious confusion, making it seem as if the πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατ. were the date of the knowledge, not, as it really is, of the vision) ἃ man in Christ (ἐν xp. belongs to ἄνθρ., not to vida, as Beza; ἄνθ. ἐν xp.= 710 , b] HD v q > NE a , > nD) qicorviis Ῥ σώματι οὐκ οἶδα, εἴτε ἃ ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα, ὁ retf. > ΄ reh. αἱ. 11,81. 1 θεὸς 1 οἶδεν) ὅ ἁρπαγέντα Ν a "4 , ὃ καὶ olda ‘tov ' τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον (εἴτε Ρ ἐν Josh. xxii. 22. Ἢ s = John τὶ. = 15. Acts vii, Οὐρανοῦ. 39. 1 Thess. iv. 17. Rev. xii. 5. t Acts xxii. 22. 1 Cor. v. 5,11. ch. ii. 5, 6. > a li Ὁ so Matt. xi. 23. Luke x. 15. xxiii, 43. Rey. ii. 7 only. Gen. ii. 8, and fr. 2. ins tw bef σωματι D!. (P uncert.) ins Tov bef τριτου F. to τρυτου.) ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. Deut. iv. 11. XII. «ς ἐπ τον ee 7 De ΄ τον TOLOUTOV EWS TPLTOV / ” ν \ a“ , > to ¢ t@ \ Ρσώματι εἴτε “χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα, ὁ * θεὸς > -“ , / Ν 4 τ οἶδεν) 3 ὅτι "ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν “ παράδεισον Kal ἤκουσεν v = Johni. 8 8]. w Luke om του bef σωματος Β ἃ [50 al next ver]. (for τριτου &! wrote τουτου, which he then altered 3. rec (for xwpis) extos (from ver 2), with D?3FKLMPX [Chr, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damase: extra latt]: txt BD! Meth,. ‘a Christian,’ ‘a man whose standing is in Christ : so οὗ καὶ mpd ἐμοῦ yéyovay ἐν χριστῷ, Rom. xvi. 7),—fourteen years ago (belongs not to οἶδα, nor to ἐν xp. as Grot.: ‘hominem talem, qui per 14 annos Christo serviat ;—but to ἁρπαγέντα. On the idiom see reft..—the date probably refers back to the time when he was at Tarsus waiting for God to point out his work, between Acts ix. 30 and xi. 25. See the chronological table in the Prolego- mena), Whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth (if in the body, the idea would be that he was taken up bodily : if out of the body, to which the alternative manifestly inclines,—that his spirit was rapt from the body, and taken up disembodied. Aug. de genesi ad litteram xii. 2—5 (83—14), vol. iii. pp. 455 ff, discusses the matter at length, and concludes thus, -- Proinde quod vidit raptus usque in tertium ccelum, quod etiam se scire confirmat, proprie vidit, non imaginaliter. Sed quia ipsa a corpore alienata utrum omnino mortuum corpus reliquerit, an secundum modum quendam viventis corporis ibi anima fuerit, sed mens ejus ad videnda vel audienda in- effabilia illius visionis arrepta sit, hoc in- certum erat,—ideo forsitan dixit, “sive in corpore sive extra corpus, nescio, Deus scit.”” And similarly Thom. Aq. and Estius: not, as Meyer thinks, making the alternative consist between reality and a mere vision, but between the anima, the life, being rapt out of the body, leaving it dead, and the mens, the intelligence or spirit, being rapt out of the body, leaving it ‘secundum modum quendam vivens’) ; such an one (so τὸν τοιοῦτον resumes after a parenthesis, 1 Cor. v. 5), rapt (snatched or taken up, reff.) as far as the third heaven. What is the third heaven? The Jews knew no such number, but com- monly (not universally: Rabbi Judah said, “Duo sunt celi, Deut. x. 147) recognized seven heavens: and if their arrangement is to be followed, the third heaven will be very low in the celestial om οὐκ 0152 B Meth,. scale, being only the material clouds. That the threefold division into the air (nubi- ferum), the sky (astriferum), and the heaven (angeliferum), was in use among the Jews, Meyer regards as a fiction of Grotius. Certainly no Rabbinical authority is given for such a statement: but it is put forward confidently by Grotius, and since his time adopted without enquiry by many Com- mentators. It is uncertain whether the sevenfold division prevailed so early as the Apostle’s time: and at all events, as we must not invent Jewish divisions which never existed, so it seems rash to apply here, one about whose date we are not certain, and which does not suit the con- text :—for to be rapt only to the clouds, even supposing ver. 4 to relate a further assumption, would hardly be thus solemnly introduced, or the preposition €ws used. The safest explanation therefore is, not to follow any fixed division, but judging . by the evident intention of the expression, to understand a high degree of celestial exaltation. I cannot see any cogency in Meyer’s argument, that ‘the third heaven must have been an idea well known and previously defined among his readers,’ see- ing that in such words as τρὶς μακάριος, &e. it is manifestly inapplicable. 8, 4.] A solemn repetition of the fore- going, with the additional particular of his having had unspeakable revelations made to him. Some, as Clem. Strom. v. 12 (80), p. 693 P., Iren. ii. 30. 7, p. 162, Athan, Apol. 20, vol. 1. p. 263, Orig. (or his interpreter) on Rom. xvi. lib. x. 43, vol. iv. p. 688, Gcum., al., think that this was a fresh assumption, ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ κἀκεῖθεν εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, and with these Meyer agrees: but surely had this been intended, some intimation would have been given of it, either by καί, or by placing εἰς τὸν παράδεισον (as the stress would be then no longer on the fact ἁρπαγῆναι as before, but on the new place to which ἡρπάγη) in the place of emphasis before ἡρπάγη ;—or, by both combined,—37: καὶ εἰς τὸν παράδεισον ἡρπάγη. As it is, 3—7. ew A ¥ “ χ ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ¥ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι. trop ΄ ; > \ ] an a 2! Qe / »pouM. χήσομα!, εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ὃ ἀσθενείαις [μου]. t Ί Ζ , 2 ὑπὲρ δὲ ἐ ὦ Τοιουτου “ καυχήσομαι, “ UTEP ε εμαύυτοῦυ OU “ Καυ- ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥ͂Σ 8. 711 id \ 5 2 UTT Ep x here only +. Lev. xvili. 23 Symm. y Matt. xii. 4. 6 23 \ Acts ii. 29 εαν yap only. Esth. iv, 2. ΄ , > ” Ὁ » - ec 2 s : vii θελήσω καυχήσασθαι, οὐκ ἔσομαι ὕ ἀφρων ἀλήθειαν τ". bose ach. xi. 30. nA , > \ f. a \ yap ἐρῶ" ἃ φείδομαι δέ, μή τις “ εἰς ἐμὲ fAoyionTtas 8 ὑπὲρ b oh, 31 10, 19 25. Ps. xiv. 2. φείδον διδάσκειν, Eur. Orest. 387.) vii. 15.) g = 1 Cor. iv. 6. x. 13. [4. ανθρωπων L Ὁ 47. | 5. om tov M. X}(corrd by XN! appy). for 2nd ὑπερ, περι D’. τοις ασθενημασιν D!, aA / xX > I 3 5) A \ “ ἢ ς Το, Α καιτη ὃ βλέπει με, ἢ ἀκούει [Tt] ἐξ ἐμοῦ. Ἷ καὶ τῇ ὃ ὕπερ- Rom. ix. ἃ =here only, (Rom. xi. 21 reff) Isa. liv. 3, Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 19,35. (μὴ é= ch..x. 13, 16 b. f = here only. (Hos. h Rom. vii. 13 reff. Jos. Antt. i. 13. 4, ii. 2.1. om ov (from preceding termination) om μου B D}(and lat) 17 syrr copt arm: ins (from ch xi. 30?) D3[-gr] FKLMPN rel vulg goth eth Ath, [ Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase [Ambr, Ambrst ]. 6. for yap, δε K: yap και P ({arm(Tischdf) Chr, ]. om τι (as. superfluous) B D3{-gr] F[-gr(and G-lat)] 8! m 17 am(with demid fuld! tol harl?) [ (Syr copt) | eth arm Orig,(-int,) [Euthal-ms]: ins D'(and lat) KLX? rel [vulg-clem F-lat harl!] syr goth Chrtajic] ‘Thdrt Damase ‘hl @e Ambrst. with the verb preceding in both clauses, and therefore no prominence given to thie places as distinguished from one another, I must hold ἕως τρίτου οὐρ. to be at least so far equivalent to εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, as to be a general local description of the situa- tion in which 6 παράδεισος is found. The repetition of εἴτε... . oidev is equally accountable on either explanation, being made for solemnity and emphasis. The παράδεισος cannot here be the Jewish Paradise, the blissful division or side of Hades (Scheol), where the spirits of the . just awaited the resurrection, see note on Luke xvi. 22,—but the Paradise of which our Lord spoke on the Cross,—the place of happiness into which He at His Death introduced the spirits of the just: see on ref. Luke. ἄρῥητα ῥήματα, i. 6. as explained below, words which it is not lawful to utter :—as Vulg., “ arcana verba, que non licet homini loqui.” The interpretation, “ que dici nequeunt,” as Beza, Estius, Calov., Olsh., al., is hardly consistent with the narrative ; for in that case, as Bengel remarks, ‘ Paulus non potuisset audire.’ The passages adduced by Wetst. mostly refer to the mysteries, or some secret rites: 6. σ΄. Demosth. contra Newram, p. 1369, αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ ὑμῖν ἔθυε τὰ ἄῤῥητα ἱερὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ εἶδεν, ἃ οὐ προφῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁρᾷν ξένην οὖσαν. ἃ οὐκ ἐξόν] which it is not lawful for a MAN to utter (see above) :— imparted by God, but not to be divulged to others: and therefore, in this case, in- tended, we may presume, for the Apostle’s own consolation and encouragement. Of what kind they were, or by whom uttered, we have no hint’ given, and it were worse than trifling to conjecture. ‘ Sublimitatis certe magne fuere: nam non omnia ceeles- tia sunt ineffabilia, v. gr. Ex. xxxiv. 6, Isa. vi. 3, quee tamen valde sublimia.” Bengel. 5.] Of such a man he will boast, but not (see above on ver. 1) of him- self, except it be in his infirmities. Tov τοιούτου must be mase. as before, not neuter, as Luth., al., take it. This is shewn by ὑπέρ, used of the person re- specting whom (reff.), whereas ἐν is said of the thing on account of which, a man boasts. He strikes here again the key- note of the whole—boasting in his in- firmities. He will boast of such a person, so favoured, so exalted; but this merely by the way: it is not his subject: it was introduced, not indeed without reference to the main point, but principally to bring in the infirmity following. 6.] For (supply the sentence for which γάρ renders a reason: ‘Not but that I might boast concerning myself if I would ’)—if I shall wish to boast (ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ), I shall not be a fool (I shall not act rashly or im- prudently, for I shall not boast without solid ground for it): for I shall speak the truth :—but I abstain (reff.), that no one may reckon of me (reff. and add εἰς μαλακίαν σκώπτων, Demosth. 308. 18) beyond (by a standard superior to that furnished by) what he sees me (to be), or hears (if τι form part of the text, or hears any thing: a pleonastic construc- tion = ἢ εἴ te ἀκούει) from me. Lest he should seem to undervalue so legitimate a subject of boasting, he alleges the reason why he abstains: not that he had not this and more such exaltations, truly to allege: but because he wished to be judged of by what they really had seen and heard of and from himself in person. 7—10.} He now comes to that for which the fore- going was mainly alleged: the infirmity in his flesh, which above others hindered his personal efficieacy in the apostoli¢ 112 ΠΡΟΣ’ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΊΟΥΣ B. XII. An an : \ “, \ / ἔ ver. I. βολῇ τῶν ἱ ἀποκαλύψεων διὸ] * ἵνα μὴ | ὑπεραίρωμαι, karrangement |, e ᾿ = 7, A ἘΠῚ. of worissch. ἐδόθη μοι δ σκόλοψ» "TH σαρκί, ἄγγελος σατανᾶ ἵνα με rk bis. } / “ ‘ € f ᾿ "2 Thesis ὃ κολαφίζη [Piva μὴ | ὑπεραίρωμαι]. 8 «ὑπὲρ τούτου ly Ps. κοῦ 16. m here only. = Num. xxxiii.55. Ezek. xxviii. 24, ἢ dat., 1 Cor. vii. 28. see Gal. iv. 14. o Matt. xxvi. 67 || Mk. 1 Cor. iv. 11. 1 Pet. ii. 20 only t. p pleonasm., Rev ii. 5. Matt. v.18. Winer, edn. 6, ἢ 65. 6. q = ver. ὃ 7. rec om 60, with DKLP rel [vulg F-lat syrr goth arm] Ath, Chr, Thdrt, [ Damasc] Iren-int, [Orig-int, Ambrst] Aug: ins AB F(-gr(and G-lat)] δὲ 17 [Euthal- nis]. utepatpouat DLP τη. (so P m [ Damase-ms!] below.) aft cape ins pov F yulg Orig-int, [ Bas-int, ] Cypry. rec (for catava) σαταν, with A2D23KLP 3 appv) rel syr-ng-gr Orig, Ath, Mac, Chr, [Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase[and ms]: txt AIBD!FR! 17}(sic, Treg) (Orig, tov carava) [satane latt]. om 2nd wa μὴ υπεραιρωμαι (as superfluous: but the repetition has special emphasis) ADF! 17 latt zeth Chr, Iren-int Tert, Aug: ins BK LPN rel syrr copt goth [arm] Orig, Mac, (Chr, Kuthal-ms } Thdrt, Damase Bas[-int, Tert, Cypr, Hil, Ambrst ]. 8. ins kat bef vrep A Orig Thdrt, lren-int,. ministry. 7.|] And that I might not, by the abundant excess of revelations (made to me), be uplifted (the order of the words is chosen to bring τῇ ὑπερβ. k.T.A. into the place of foremost emphasis: see reff. The διό can hardly stand with the present punctuation. If it forms part of the text, it must begin the sentence, and we must with Lachmann join καὶ τῇ ὕπερβ. τῶν amok. to the foregoing, as in apposition with ἀσθενείαις. But thus a very strange sense would be given), there was given me (‘by God: certainly not, as Meyer, al., by Satan, of whom such an expression as ἐδόθη would surely hardly be used: cf. ἢ χάρις ἡ δοθεῖσά μοι, so often said by the Apostle——Rom. xii. 3, 6; xv. 15 al., and the absolute use of ἐδόθη for bestowed, portioned out by God, 1 Cor. xi. 15; xii. 7,8; Gal. iii. 21; James i. 5) a thorn (the word may signify a stake, or sharp pointed staff, ξύλον ὀξύ, Hesych.,—so in Hom. Il. σ. 176, κεφαλὴν .. . πῆξαι ava σκολόπεσσι; but in the LXX, reff., it is ‘a thorn, and such is the more likely meaning here. Meyer cites from Artemid. iii. 38, ἄκανθαι καὶ σκόλοπες ὀδύνας on- μαίνουσι διὰ τὸ ὀξύ (compare ref. Ezek., σκόλοψ πικρίας καὶ ἄκανθα ὀδύνη5). See however Stanley’s note, who rejects the meaning ‘thorn,’ and supposes the figure to refer to the punishment of impalement) in my flesh (the expression used Gal. iv. 14 of ths same affliction, τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, seems decisive for rendering the dative thus, and not as a dativus incommodi: see also ref. 1 Cor.), the (or an) angel of Satan (even if we read gatay, it can only be the genitive. If taken as the nom., the expression would mean either, @ hostile angel, which would be contrary to the universal usage of Satan, as a proper name: or, the angel Satan, which is equally inconsistent with N.T. usage, according to which Satan, though once an angel, is now ἄρχων τῆς “ον kup. bef τρις D'[and lat] copt eth. ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, Eph. ii. 2, and has his own angels, Matt. xxv. 41), that he (the angel of Satan,—not the σκόλοψ, which would be an unnecessary confusion of me- taphors. ‘ The continuation of a discourse often belongs to the word in apposition, not to the main subject,’ Meyer) may buffet me (xoAapi(y is best thus expressed, in the present. ‘The aorist would denote merely one such act of insult. Thus Chrys.: . . éste . . διηνεκοῦς δεῖσθαι τοῦ χαλινοῦ ov yap εἶπεν, ἵνα κολαφίσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα Kodapi(n,—Theophyl., οὐχ ἵνα ἅπαξ με κολαφίσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεί,---ηὰ similarly (Ecum.), that I may not be uplifted (the repetition gives force and solemnity,—ex- pressing his firm persuasion of the divine intention in thus afflicting him). As regards the thorn itself, very many, and some very absurd conjectures have been hazarded. They may be resolved into three heads, the two former of which are, from the nature of the case, out of the question (see below): (1) that Paul alludes to spiritual solicitations of the devil (‘in- jectiones Satane ’), who suggested to him blasphemous thoughts,—so Gerson, Luther (how characteristically !), Calov..—or re- morse for his former life, so Osiander, Mosheim, &c.: or according to the Ro- manist interpreters, who want to find here a precedent for their monkish stories of temptations, —incilements to lust, —so Thom. Aq., Lyra, Bellarmin, Estius, Corn.-a-Lapide, al. (2) that he alludes to opposition from his adversaries, or some one adversary κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν; so many ancient Commentators, Cbhrys., Theophyl., (Ecumn., Theodoret,—Calvin, Beza, al., and more recently, Fritzsche, and Schrader. (3) that he points to some grievous bodily pain, which has been curiously specified by different Commentators. The ancients (Chrys., Theophyl., @cum., Je- rome on Gal. iv. 14 (lib. ii. 4, vol. vii. p- 460)) mention κεφαλαλγία: some ABDFK LPR ab cede fg hklmn Ὁ 17.47 8—10. X X , r / ς (7 t , fal » ,’ τρὶς τὸν κύριον 'παρεκάλεσα "ἵνα ᾿ἀποστῇ ἀπ \ , ᾽ A ε ΄ 9 καὶ εἴρηκέν ot" Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου ἡ γὰρ δύναμις Ψ “ ἐν ‘ ἀσθενείᾳ “ τελεῖται. y ᾽ lal Vv > θ / “ Fae / ’ 215) XX ΠΕ COMAL “ EV TALS ᾿ ADVEVELALS (LOU, LYA “ ETTLOKNVWON ET EME ἢ δύναμις τοῦ χριστοῦ. vi. 8. Heb. xiii. δ. 3 John 10) only. only. 19. -διον, Sir. xxii. 11.) Polyb. iv. 18. 8. ach. ν. 8. 9. for εἰρηκεν, εἰπεν F Chry. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. (See Luke ii. 39. Rom. ii. 27.) Eur. Bacch. 90. Rom. ii. 17 reff. Rom. xv. 26, 27 reff. 713 5) na εμου. r = Matt. xviii. So χανὶ. 5.9. Luke xv. 28, Acts xxv. 2. s 1 Cor. i. 10 x ἥδιστα οὖν μᾶλλον Y καυχή- © rel. t = Acts v.38 reff. u = Matt. xxv. \ b n b) 5) / > 9. 70] 10 διὸ ὅὉ εὐδοκῶ ὃ ἐν ἡ ἀσθενείαις, ἐν xiv.s (Luke 111,14. 1 Tim. Num. xi. 22. v= ch. xi. 30. w = here x ver. 15 only τ. (-δέως, ch. xi. > ’ x Ν ᾿ ΄ zhere only+. ἐπισκ. επὶ TAS οἰκίας, 1 Cor. x. 5 reff. rec aft Suvauis ins μου (see note), with A? D?:3[-gr] KLPR® rel syrr Orig,[{-c, Ath, Euthal-ms] Chr, Thdrt Pallad [Damasc]: om [A!]BD!FN! [αἰ] goth wth Archel, Orig-int, Iren-int, Bas[-int, | Tert, Cypr, Ambrst Jer. Thdrt-p]: txt ABD!FN}. ree τελειουται, with D3K LPN rel Orig,[-c, Iren,} Ath [Chr, Euthal-ms om μου Β 672.71 harl syr copt [arm] Iren, (gr and int). 10. aft ac@everas ins μου F vulg(not am [demid harl tol] F-lat). have supposed hypochondriac melancholy, which however hardly answers the con- ditions of a σκόλοψ, in which acute pain seems to be implied; alii aliter, see Pool, Synops. ad loc.; and Stanley’s note, which is important in other respects also, and full of interest. On the whole, putting together the figure here used, that of a thorn, occasioning pain, and the κολα- φισμός, buffeting or putting to shame, it seems quite necessary to infer that tke Apostle alludes to some painful and tedious bodily malady, which at the same time put him to shame before those among whom he exercised his ministry. Of such a kind may have been the disorder in his eyes, more or less indicated in several pas- sages of his history and Epistles (see notes on Acts xiii. 9; xxiii. 1 f.:—and Gal. iv. 14 (15 ?); vi. 11 (?)). But it may also have been something besides this, and to such an inference probability would lead us; disorders in the eyes, however sad in their consequences, not being usually of a very painful or distressing nature iz them- selves. 8.1 In respect of this (angel of Satan, not σκόλοψ, see below) I thrice (τρίς, not indefinite as Chrys., Hom. xxvi. p. 621, τουτέστι, πολλάκις. Meyer well observes, ‘ At his first and second request, no answer was given tohim: on the third occasion, it came; and his faithful resig- nation to the Lord’s will prevented his asking again’) hesought the Lord (Christ, see ver. 9) that he might depart from me (the angel of Satan, see Luke iv. 13 [Acts Ἐπ 909}}}}- 9.1] And He said to me (this perf. can hardly in English be repre- sented otherwise than by the historical aorist ; in the Greek, it partakes of its own proper sense—‘ He said, and that answer is enough ; * He hath said, —but this last would not contain reference enough to the fact itself. The poverty of our language in the finer distinctions of the tenses often obliges us to render inaccurately, and fall short of, the wonderful language with which we have to deal. How this was said, whether accompanied by an appearance of Christ to him or not, must remain in obscurity), My grace (not,— ‘My favour generally ;—‘ My tmparted grace’) is sufficient for thee (ἀρκεῖ, spoken from the divine omniscience, ‘ suffices, and ‘shall suffice:’ α. ἃ. ‘ the trial must endure, untaken away: but the grace shall also endure, and never fail thee’), for (the reason lying in My ways being not as man’s ways, My Power not being brought to perfection as man’s power is conceived to be) (My) Power is made perfect (has its full energy and complete mani- festation) in (as the element in which it acts as observable by man) weakness. See ch. iv. 7, and 1 Cor. ii. 3, 4,—where the influence of this divine response on the Apostle, is very manifest. If I mistake not, the expression τῆς δυνάμεως, there, favours the omission of μου here, as in our text, and makes it probable that it was in- serted for perspicuity’s sake, and to an- swer to 7 Suv. τοῦ xp. below. Most gladly therefore will I rather (than that my afiliction should be removed from me, which before that response, I wished) boast (xavx. is in the emphatic place,— I will rather δοαδέ in mine infirmities. Had μᾶλλον signified ‘rather than ἐπ revelations, or ‘ rather than in any thiag else, it would have been μᾶλλον ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου καυχήσομαι) in my in- firmities, that (by my ἀσθένειαι being not removed from me, but becoming my glory) the Power of Christ may have its residence in me (see ref. Polyb.—‘ may carry on in me its work unto completion,’ as above). 10.] Wherefore (because of this relation to human weakness and divine power) I am well content [cf. the same expression Matt. iii. 17] in infirmi- ties (four kinds of which are then specified, —all coming also, as well as ἄσθ. proper, 714 c=here (Acts δ ὕβρεσιν, ἐν xxvii. 10, 21) ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. d » / b] e ὃ nr 9 ἀνώγκαις, ἐν © διωγμοῖς, ἐν XIT. ‘ srevoxwpiats, \ rn - , , only. Prov. ὑχγὲρ χριστοῦ" ὅταν yap § ἀσθενῶ, τότε δυνατός εἰμι. — Ό . ii. / i φ op 5 are pur, > έγονα ἰἄφρων' ὑμεῖς μὲ * ἠναγκάσατε. ἐγὼ yap ch. vi. 4. 12 re τὶ m , ‘ 50" \ n £ , eMarkiv.17 ἰὠφειλον up ὑμῶν συνίστασθαι" οὐδὲν yap ™ ὑστέρησα Act nines A ε > , > \ > ‘ αι. 9. αν τῶν οὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων, εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι. 13 τὰ om, Vill. . ~~ -» / / A 2Thess.is μὲν 4 σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου "κατειργάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν Im. 111. - an 7 \ / \ pisonly 4 ἢ πάσῃ ‘ ὑπομονῇ, ἃ σημείοις τε Kal "" τέρασιν καὶ ἃ“ δυνά- Lam. iii. 19. 1327 ΄ > x oye 40 ΠΡ ἢ δέν \ \ BMace. xii, LEU. τί yap ἐστιν “ὃ Y ἡσσώθητε * ὑπὲρ τὰς λοιπὰς 23 only. f Rom. ii. 9 reff. == Rom. iv. 19 reff. k Acts xxvi. 11 reff. = Acts xvii. 29. Rom. iii. 23. ch. xi. 5. (i. 7 reff.) ii. 12. 2 Thess. iii. 17 al. Ὁ Acts ii. 22. Heb. ii. 4. x constr. acc., as Matt. xvi. 26. ¥— ver. 6. r Rom. ii. 9 reff. 1 Cor. xi. 7, 10. och. xi. 5 only t. v Acts vii. 36 reff. ? y here only. {(-ττᾶσθαι, 2 Pet. ii. 19, 20. Isa. viii. 9. xx. 5.) Ὦ ΞΞ 1 Cor χϑῖι. 1. ich. xi. 16, 19 reff. m = Rom. iii. 5 reff, n constr., q= Luke t Rom. ii.7 reff. 1 Cor. xii. 10 al. p 1 Cor. vii. 19 reff. s = Acts xx. 19 reff. w = Matt. vii. 22. for ev αναγκαις, Kat evarykats X!(corrd by origl scribe to[ x. ] avaryk. [so Orig, |, by 83 to txt). om ev διωγμοις A. [PINS rel. ote F. for 5th ev, καὶ ΒΝ: καὶ ev a[arm(‘Tischdf) |: txt ADFKL duvatw (for -τος εἰμι) Εἰ not F-lat, G-lat has both]. 11. rec aft appwy ins καυχωμενος, with LP rel syrr goth [Chr, Thdrt Damasc]: om ABDFKX 17 latt coptt φῦ} arm Orig[-c, Euthal-ms Ambr, Ambrst]. F[-gr]. om vg B!(Tischdf) D![-gr ]. aft ovdev yap ins τι B. 12. at beg ins αλλα F [37(omg per) J. μειξ ἢ up μων A. for ovdev, ov ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat]. κατηργασθη BIE ἃ: κατηργασθην D. rec ins ev bef σημείοις (mechanical repetition from the foregoing), with 1)3- ον] KLP rel vulg-ed(with demid) Thdrt; καὶ F[-gr(and G-lat)] Syr Chr,: τε 83: om AB D'{and lat | &!.a 17 am(with fuld tol [ F-lat |) syr goth arm [ Euthal-ms ] Damase Ambrst, recom τε, with ADFKLP &-corr! rel: ins BX' a 17 [ Euthal-ms} Damase. 13. (ησσωθητε, so ΒΝ 17[᾿σωθ.]: ἐλατωθηται FB.) under the category of ἀσθένειαι, as hin- drances and bafflings of human strength), —in insults, in necessities, in persecu- tions, in distresses,—on behalf of Christ: for whenever I am weak (applying to all five situations above), then I am mighty. Wetst. quotes from Philo, Vita Mosis, i. 13, vol. ii. p. 92, μὴ ἀναπίπτετε. τὸ ἀσθενὲς ὑμῶν δύναμίς ἐστι. 11—18.] He excuses his boasting, and is thereby led to speak of the signs of an Apostle wrought among them, and to reassert his disinterestedness in preaching to them, on occasion of his past and intended visits. 11.| I am Become (the emphasis on yéyova,—I am verily become a fool, viz. by this boasting, which I have now concluded. ‘Receptui canit?’ Bengel. But it is still ironical, spoken from the situation of his adversaries) a fool: ye compelled me (vuetsemphatic). For I (ἐγώ also emphatic, but more with reference to what has passed : ‘ye compelled me, it was no doing of mine, for I ἄς. The meaning is not, as De W., “JZ, not mine adver- saries,”’ who are an element foreign to the present sentence) ought to have been re- commended by you (emphatic, by you, not by himself): for I was nothing behind (when I was with you) these overmuch Apostles (see on ch. xi. 5: but here even more plainly than there, the expression cannot be applied to the other Apostles, secing that the aor. would in that case for ὑπερ, παρα 1). be inconsistent with the fact—-the Corin- thians never having had an opportunity of comparing him with them),even though Iam nothing (see similar expressions of humility, 1 Cor. xv. 9—11). 12.] Confirmation of the οὐδὲν ὑστέρησα .... The signs indeed (the μέν is ellipti- cal,—see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 411, —corresponding to a suppressed ὅμως δὲ -. 3 ‘in this case, the signs indeed &c., but, notwithstanding, I am not recom- mended by you. So Soph. Gd. Col. 526, ἤνεγκον κακότατ᾽, ὦ ξένοι, ἤνεγκ᾽, ἀέκων μέν, θεὸς ἴστω. It always throws out into strong emphasis the noun, pronoun, or verb to which it is attached, as here σημεῖα) of an Apostle (τοῦ generic,—‘ ejus qui Apostolus sit,’ Bengel) were wrought out among you (“the Apostle’s own per- sonality as the worker is modestly veiled behind the passive.” Meyer) in all (pos- sible) patience (endurance of opposition, which did not cause me to leave off work- ing. ὑπομονή is not one of the σημεῖα, as Chrys., Hom. xxvii. p.627: θέα ποῖον πρῶτον τίθησι, τὴν ὑπομονήν. τοῦτο yap ἀποστόλου δεῖγμα, τὸ φέρειν πάντα yevvalws,—but the element in which the σημεῖα were wrought out), by signs and wonders (onu. not as above, but as constantly found with τέρασι, as an intensitive synonym) and mighty works (see ref. Heb.). 13—15.| His disinterestedness, shewn in his past, and resolved in his future dealings with them. ABDFK LPR ab cedefg hkimn 017,42 11—15. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 715 2 » / > Ve 3 oN ΘΝ 3% ἢ e a ἐκκλησίας, EL μὴ OTL AUTOS ἔγω οὐ ” KATEVAPKNTA ὑμῶν § a piur., Rom. c / θέ \ d iO / / χαρίσασθέ μοι τὴν 3 ἀδικίαν ταύτην. fe a f e / f yy ING lal \ e “ \ » τοῦτο] ΄ ἑτοίμως ᾿ ἔχω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐ / > \ aA \ e “ > \ e rf vapknow ov yap 8 ζητῶ τὰ ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ ὑμᾶς. πον \ , xvi. 16 reff. 14 (500 © τρίτον υ ch. 34,8 only reff.). b 6 = ΟΕ τ 10 reff. d = here only. Thue. iii. 66. e ch. xiii. 1 reff. KaTa- ov γὰρ / / a r Ἢ e ᾿ "ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ᾿' θησαυρίζειν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ Acts καὶ. 13 “ a , \ \ 5, γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις" 15 ἐγὼ δὲ * ἥδιστα | δαπανήσω καὶ ™ ἐκ- 51 Cor. x. 24 reff. h ver. 11. δαπανηθήσομαι ὑπὲρ τῶν ἃ ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, εἰ ° περισσοτέρως i 1Cor. xvi.2 k ver. 9. 1 Acts xxi. 24 reff. n = Heb. xiii. 17. i 1 Pet. 11. 11. om οτι K 47. eyw bef avros F τὴ latt goth. m here only +. Polyb. xxv. 8. 4, exdatravav τὰς προςόδους. ο ch. i. 12 reff. αμαρτιαν F[-gr]. 14. rec om τουτο, with KLP rel Thdrt Gc: ins ABFN ἃ Ὁ ὁ ἃ τὴ ο 17. 47 latt syr goth zth Chr, [Euthal-ms Thdrt] Damasc ΤῊ] Ambrst Pel, and (but bef τριτον) D[-gr] 93 (Syr?) copt [arm] Did,. (see note.) rec aft Katavapknow ins vuwy (from above; had υμων been in the text origly, it would never have been ejected, leaving the verb standing alone. This is further shewn by the var vuas), with D?3KLP rel [latt syrr coptt goth arm Chr, Thdrt]; vuas D'F: om ABN 17 wth [ Euthal-ms ] Damase. Damasc }.) adAa(2nd) AX 17. 15. aft δαπανησω add καὶ exdatavnow Ὠϊ(απα lat) Ambrst. rec aft εἰ ins καὶ (to give (mistaken) emphasis: see notes), with G-lat Ambrst. (adAa(Ist), so ABDFLPR ἃ ἃ 6 ἐκ mn 47 [Euthal-ms om εἰ D!(and lat) - D?.3(-gr] KLP% rel syrr [eth] arm Chr Thdrt Damase Pel: om AB D![and lat] FR! 17 coptt goth [licet vulg F-lat]. The question τί yap «.7.A. is asked in bitter irony. It is an illustration of ἐν πάσῃ ὑπομονῇ, and of the distinction con- ferred on them by so long manifestation of the signs of an Apostle among them. ‘ Was this endurance of working which I shewed, marred by the fact that I worked gratuitously among you?’ joo. ὑπέρ does not imply that all churches suffered loss, and that the loss of the Corinthians was only not greater than that of other churches: but the comparative, implied in joo. is carried out by the ὑπέρ, ---“ ye suf- Jered loss in comparison with the other Churches. 13. εἰ μὴ ὅτι] except that one point, in which of all others they had least reason to complain. This one is put forward to indicate their deep ingratitude, if they did complain, seeing that the only point of difference in their treatment had been a preference : ‘die tief getrantte Liebe redet,’ Meyer. On κατενάρκ. see ref. Xap. μ. τ. 28. ταύτην] ‘The irony here reaches its height. 14.] τρίτον (the τοῦτο, though so strongly attested, can hardly have been omitted, had it ever been in the text, and therefore has probably been inserted from ch. xiii. 1) ἕτ. ἔχω ἐλθ., must, from the context, mean, I am ready to come the third time ;—not, ‘J am the third time ready to come,’ i.e. ‘ this is the third time that I have been ready to come to you.’ This latter meaning has been adopted by Beza, Grot., Estius, al., Paley, al., and even De Wette, hesitatingly, in order to evade the difficulty of supposing Paul to have been before this twice at Corinth. But on this see Prolegomena to 1 Cor. § v. Here, the context has abso- lutely nothing to do with his third pre- paration to come, which would be a new element, requiring some explanation, as in 1 Thess. ii. 18. The natural, and, I am persuaded, only true inference from the words here is, "1 am coming to you a third time,—and I will not burden you this time, any more than I did at my two previous visits.’ Our business in such cases is, not to wrest plain words to fit our precon- ceived chronology, but to adapt our con- Jfessedly uncertain and imperfect history of the Apostle’s life, to the data furnished by the plain honest sense of his Kpistles. οὐ yap ζητῶ. .. .7 Wetst. quotes Cicero de Fin. ii. 26: ‘Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri sumus.’—pel(ova ἐπιζητῶ, ψυχὰς ἀντὶ χρη- μάτων, σωτηρίαν ἀντὶ χρυσίον, Clrys., p. 629. ov yap ὀφείλει .. .1 Paul was the spiritual futher οἵ the Corinthian Church, 1 Cor. iv. 14, 15: he does not therefore want to be enriched by them, his children, but rather to lay up riches for them, seck- ing to have them as his treasure, and thus to enrich them, as a loving father does his children. The θησαυρός is left indefinite : if pressed strictly, it cannot be earthly trea- sure in the negative part of the sentence, heavenly, in the positive ;—cf. next verse. Notice, ὀφείλει is not impersonal, but the common verb to τέκνα and γονεῖς, agreeing by proximity with the former. 15.] ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν φύσει πατέρων Kal πλέον τι ποιεῖν ἐπαγγέλλομαι, Theodoret: and similarly Chrys. and Theophyl. They lay up treasures: J will spend them :—xa) τί 716 ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOT®S B. A Lal Ὁ > “Ὁ ὑμᾶς ἀγαπῶν ἧσσον ὠγαπῶμαι. ΧΙ 16 Ἔστω δέ, ἐγὼ οὐ τὑπάρχων " πανοῦ ‘Sor px ανοῦργος * δόλῳ 17 7 Ἢ e ’ / ἣν Ν e lal μῆ τινα ὧν ATTECTTAAKA T pos υμας, 18 X παρεκάλεσα Τίτον, Ww 3 , ἐπλεονεκτῆσεν ἃ περιεπωτήσαμεν ; p = here (1 Cor. ai 17) ie con ᾽ \ yn! a C | Ie only. 2Mace. d κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς. adda q here Sar +. ὑμᾶς u ἔλαβον vv ᾽ 8 ‘ap xiv. 40. y > ’ na w2 / ΘΛ 2Kings xiii. ἡ ὃ, αὐτοῦ Ὗ ἐπλεονέκτησα VMAS ; 20. oa , Χ > “ ΄ r Acts ὙΠ]. 16. καὶ Y συναπέστειλα * τὸν ἀδελφόν μή τι s here only. reer ͵ ᾽ A AY Ey 7 ποῦν. 5. ὑμᾶς Τίτος ; ov τῷ αὐτῷ * πνεύματι (good sense, . Mi : Ἐπ τιν ra t Prove οὐ τοῖς αὑτοῖς "ἴχνεσιν ; (- γία, ch. xi. t Acts xiii. 10 reff. u = ch. xi. 20. x = 1 Cor. xvi. 12. ch. viii. 6. v here only. 18, 22. a constr., Acts xxi. 21 reff. 44 (Matt. xi. 21. Luke x. 13. Heb. 1. 1. see 1 Cor. ix. 3. al.) Exod. xxxii.11 A Ald. e Acts xix. 33 reff. for ayarwv, wyarw ἕξ) Ὁ} ἃ 17 [coptt(Tischdf) ]. εἐλασσον F.) 16. aft eyw ins δε ΕΓ ποῦ F-lat}] syr ΤῊ]. vuwv FR (a) 20-31. 39. 57. 73 Chr, [Euthal-ms]. [ Euthal-ms Damasc ].) 17. om & αὐτου F. 19 οἸΤάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι 4 ὑμῖν © ἀπολογούμεθα. v constr., Luke xxi. 6. Exod. xxxiii. 2, 12. 2 Pet. i. 9. Jude 4) oly, f KaT- w ch. ii. 11 reff. z see ch. vill. c = (see note) Mark xv. {lsa. χα αν 26 only. d dat., =ch.ii.17. Rom. iv. 17 only. as xix. 30 Rom. viii. 3. Gal. i. 20. Esdr. ν. 2 only. Rom. iv. 12 reff. (ησσον, so ABD!PR! 17[icov] : oux εβαρησα vuas D!: ov κατεναρκησα (adda, so ABD! F LPN a m 47 18. quas L. 19. rec (for παλαι) παλιν, with D-gr KLPR3 rel G-lat harl! syrr copt goth arm Chr, Thdrt [Damasc] : λέγω, χρήματα δαπανήσω ; ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἐκ- δαπανηθήσομαι" τουτέστι, κἂν τὴν σάρκα δέῃ δαπανῆσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας τῶν ψυχῶν cre ov φείσομαι, Theophyl. Cf. Hor. Od. i. 12. 38: ‘animeque magne prodigum τὴ εἴν εἰ is less strong than εἰ καί, which has been apparently a gloss on it. It assumes the case, but does not bring out the contrast between the course of action and the state of circum- stances so strongly. Here, it appears as if ἧσσον ἀγαπῶμαι were by the εἰ connected with ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι, ---“ and will be spent, used up, 22 the service of your souls, if, the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved :? implying, that such a return for his love was leading to, and would in time accomplish, the ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι. 16—18.] He refutes a possible, perhaps an actual calumny,—that though he had acted disinterestedly towards them him- self, he had some side-way of pr ofiting by them, through others. 16.] ἔστω δέ —‘but let us suppose the former matter dismissed :’ let the fact be granted, that I myself (emphatic) did not burden (= κατ- ενάρκησα) you. ‘Then the sense breaks off, and the force of the concession goes no farther, the following words making a new hypothesis. Nevertheless, being (by habit and standing, ὑπάρχ.) crafty (unprincipled, and versatile in devices), [caught you with guile (with some more subtle way. Caught you, in order to practise upon you for my own ends; but ἔλαβον is not ἐπλεον- extnoa, as Chrys., Hom, xxviii. p. 633 :— see ref. and note). 17, 18.1] Specifica- tion, in refutation, of the ways in which this might be supposed to have taken place. txt ABFR! 17 vulg D-lat [Euthal-ms] Ambrst-comm Pel. The construction τινα ὧν... δὲ αὐτοῦ is an anacoluthon. He sets τινα ὧν ἀπέστ. mp. vu. forward in the place of emphasis ; how intending to govern τινα, is not plain: but drops the construction, and proceeds, δι αὐτοῦ «.7.A. See examples of the same in reff., and Winer, edn. 6, ὃ 63. i: “ἢ. 18.] παρεκάλεσα, 561]. ‘to go to you: see reff. ‘This journey of Titus cannot, of course, be the one spoken of ch. viii. 6, 17, 22, 24; but some previous mission to them before this Epistle was written: probably that from which he re- turned with the report of their penitence to Paul in Macedonia, ch. vii. 6 ff. We certainly have not elsewhere any hint of 6 ἀδελφός having accompanied him on this journey : but this is no reason why it sbould not have been so. τὸν adeAov—per- haps, one of the two mentioned ch. viii. 18, 22: some other, well known to the Corinthians, but absolutely unknown to us: but not, a brother, asin KE. V. It is plain from this and from what follows, that this brother was quite subordinate to Titus in the mission. τῷ αὐτῷ Trvevp. | dat. of the manner; see ref. ‘The Spirit in which they walked was the Holy Spirit : : τῷ αὐτῷ πνευματικῷ χαρίσματι" χάρισμα “γὰρ καλεῖ τὸ στενούμενον μὴ λαβεῖν, Theophyl. τοῖς αὖτ. txv.] in the same footsteps, viz. each as the other: οὐδὲ μικρόν. φησί, παρεξῆλθον THY ἐμὴν ὁδόν, Theophyl. The dative ἔχνεσιν, as in ref. = ἐν ixveow: see also Acts xiv. 16; Jude 11. Meyer cites Pind. Pyth. x. 20,—é€uBéRakev ἴχνεσιν πατρός, and Nem. vi. 27, ἔχνεσιν ἐν Πραξιδάμαντος ἑὸν πόδα νέμων. Cf. also Philo de Caritate, ὃ 2, ABDFK LPN ab ecdetg hkimna 0 17. 47 16—21. έναντι θεοῦ % ἐν χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν" / j Ε A lal j c lal k πητοῖ, ‘UTEP τῆς Ἰυμων o / δ ἵπως ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω “ εὕρω, ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. > an οἰκοδομῆς. 117 bs τὰ δὲ πάντα, Νέων g Rom. ix. 1. 20 1 πῇ ref. φοβοῦμαι γὰρ ἱ μή i= ch. i. 6. m κ΄ jposn.,1Cor. ix, ὑμᾶς, κἀγὼ ™ εὑρεθῶ "15. ὧν. 1.6 bis, 24. vii. 7 ΕἾ τα :- 5) ῇ ἡ] "ἢ ἢ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε" 1 μή 'ἱ πως 594 ἔρεις, Ῥ ζῆλος, Ρα᾽ θυμοί, 326. νἱ, 18, Ν ~ , ἢ , 5 Phil. . 19, 25. PS ἐριθεῖαι, ' καταλαλιαΐί, ἃ ψιθυρισμοί," φυσιώσεις, “ ἀκατα- 130. Col. i 8. 1 Thess. / \ / 3 , , ε oe, otaciat’ 31] μὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντος * wou " ταπεινώσει * we ὁ “θεός ti.7 (Rom. vii. 35. ch. vii. 15) only. k Rom. xiv. 19 reff. Ich. xi. 3. m = 1 Cor. iv. 2 reff. n dat., Luke xxiv. 35 al. ΟἹ Cor. i. ἕν reff. p Gal. v. 20. 4 as above (p). Rom. xiii. 13. "1 Cor. iii. 3. Sir. x1.5. = Eph. iv. 31 al. plur., Gal. v. 20 only. (Wisd. vii. 20.) s Rom. ii. 8 reff. t 1 Pet. ii. τ only Τ. ὙΥΙβά. 1. 11 Ομ]. (-Aos, Rom. i. 30.) u here only. Eccles. x. 11 only. (- στής, Rom. 1. 29.) vy here only +. (-σιοῦν, 1 Cor. iv. Ὁ eal) y ch. xi. 7 reff. constr., Col. ii. w 1 Cor. xiv. 33 reff. z Rom. i. 8 reff. x constr., Acts xxi. 17 reff. rec (for κατεναντι) κατενωπιον, with DKLP rel [ Bas,] Thdrt ΤῊ] He: txt ABFX m 17 { Euthal-ms ] Damase. m(@ew) 17 [| Bas, Euthal-ms]. 20. και eyw F. rec ins Tov bef θεου, with D?-3K LN? rel : for αγαπ., αδελφοι P. epis (ttacism ?) AR bdfghk17 Syr arm Chr Thi: om ABD!FPN} txt BDFKLP τ latt syr coptt goth [Euthal-ms Antch,] Thdrt εὐ σόν. [ic] Ambrst. . rec ζγλοι, with D?-3KLPR rel latt syr coptt Chr Thdrt [Euthal-ms Ambrst] : txt AB D![-gr] F[-gr] 17 Syr goth arm [Antch, ] Damase. 21. rec ελθοντα με (grammatical correction), with DKLN3 rel goth [Chr, Thdrt. Damasc]: txt ABFPX! [Euthal-ms]. with AKN rel [Chr Thdrt Damasc]: rec om με, with D8KL rel: vol. ii. p. 385, τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἴχνεσιν ἐπακο- λουθῆσαι. 19—21.] He refutes the no- tion which might arise in the minds of his readers, that he was vindicating himself BEFORE THEM as judges, see 1 Cor. iv. 3 ; and assures them that he does all for ther good, fearing in what state he might find them on his arrival. 19.] πάλαι was misunderstood, and πάλιν appears to have been a conjectural emendation, from ch. iii. 1; v.12. πάλαι does not suit the znter- rogative form of the sentence, which would throw it out into too strong emphasis. Lachmann, Tischdf. (ed. F | [and 8]), Meyer, De Wette read it as in text:—Ye have been some time imagining (i.e. during this my self-defence) that it is to you that Iam defending myself. Then the answer follows: the assumption being made, and elliptically answered, as in ver. 16. kat. θεοῦ is emphatic, and opposed to ὑμῖν. ἐν χρ. λαλοῦμεν, as in ch. ii. 17, which see. τὰ δὲ πάντα] supply either λαλοῦμεν, or better under- stand τὰ πάντα as ‘ all our things’ (1 Cor. xvi. 14), i.e. our words and deeds, and supply γίνεται, as there. Grot., Gries- bach, Scholz, and Olsh., would read rade πάντα, and join with λαλοῦμεν. But (1) Paul never uses the pronoun ὅδε: and (2) if he did, it must. apply to what follows, not to what has preceded. The insertion of the personal pronoun between the article and the noun, as in τῆς tp. οἰκοδομῆς, occurs, as A. Buttmann has correctly re- marked (see Moulton’s Winer, p. 193, note 4), in Paul only (see reff.), and with no other pronoun than ὑμῶν, 20.1 ‘ Edi- rec ταπεινωσὴ (gramml corrn or itacism ὮΝ txt BDFLP (c?)dfgkn [{Euthal-ms] Me. ins ABD!F[P]& d. fication, of which you stand in need, for, ἄς. He here completely and finally throws off the apologist and puts on the Apostle, leaving on their minds a very different impression from that which would have been produced had he concluded with the apoiogy. Lest, when I arrive, I should find you not such as I wish (in οὐχ οἵους θέλω is an indefinite possibility of aberration from οἵους θέλω, presently particularized, μή πως Epes, κιτ A.), and I should be found by you (ὑμῖν merely the dative of the agent after the passive verb. Meyer makes it ‘72 your judgment,’ but I much prefer the other: the passive form is adopted to bring out the ἐγώ into emphatic contrast), such as ye wish not (not οὐχ οἷον θέλετε, because there is now no indefiniteness ; Azs disposition towards them in such a case could be but of one kind, viz. severity: τουτέστι, τιμωρὸς K. κο- λαστής, Theophyl. Chrys.,p. 634, brings out another point,—ov« εἶπεν, οἷον οὐ θέλω. ἀλλὰ πληκτικώτερον,--- οἷον οὐ βούλεσθε). What follows, viz. μή πως ... ἔπραξαν, is an epexegesis of the last sentence, but in it the definiteness is on the side of the οὐχ οἵους θέλω, the indefiniteness on that of οἷον ov θέλετε, which latter is only hinted at by the mild expressions of being humbled, and lamenting the case of the zmpenitent. μή πως, scil. ὦσιν (or εὑρεθῶσιν) ἐν ὑμῖν. “The vehemence of his language has caused “him to omit the verb.” Stanley. ἐριθεῖαι, self-seek- ings, see note on ref. Rom. ψιθ. se- cret malignings,—«karakX. open slanders. ἀκαταστ., see refi. and note. 21.] 718 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. XIII. 1 a \ ΄ nr \ b θ , \ A c a =(? see note) 7 μου ὃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ " πενθήσω πολλοὺς τῶν “προημαρ- 1 Cor. xvi. 6 reff. b 1 Cor. v. 2 reff. constr., here only. Gen, xxxvii. 34 al. ehere only. Joel ii. 13, Amos vii. 3. [προς uu. bef tam. με o Geos D Syr copt Thdrt,. μή carries on the μή mws... μή πως, but with more precision, dropping the in- definite πως. The sentence loses much in force and, indeed, becomes inconsistent with the context, if with Lachmann (and Liicke, Conjectanea exeget.i. De W.) it be made interrogative (which it may be gram- matically with either reading, ταπεινώσει or -o7), in which case the answer would be negative. πάλιν here, as Meyer ob- serves, must belong to the whole ἐλθόντος μου ταπεινώσει με ὃ θ. μ. πρὸς ὑμ., because, ἐλθών having been used without πάλιν just before, the emphatic situation of πάλιν as applying to it would be unmeaning : see also the very different way in which it is connected with ἔλθω, ch. xiii. 2. ταπεινώσει) ‘ Nihil erat quo magis exul- taret apostolus, quam prospero suze preadi- cationis successu (1 Thess. ii. 20): contra nihil erat, unde tristiore et demissiore animo redderetur, quam quum cerneret, se frustra laborasse, Beza (Meyer). The fut. (ref.) indicates an assumption that the supposed case will really be. That this humbling, and not that of being obliged to punish, is intended, seems evident: the exercise of judicial authority being no hu- miliation, but the contrary. and humiliation being the natural result of want of success. 6 θεός pov expresses the conviction that whatever humiliation God might have in store for him would be a part of His will respecting him. πρὸς ὑμᾶς] among you, as the generality of inter- preters: ‘in regard to you, in my relation to you, as Meyer. Either may be meant: but if we take the former, we must not join it, as Grot., al., with ἐλθόντος : it belongs at all events to ταπεινώσει. πενθήσω] Theophyl. explains, μὴ ἐλθὼν κολάσῃ αὐτούς, καὶ πενθήσῃ διὰ τοῦτο" τουτέστι, τὰ ἔσχατα λυπηθῇ : so also al. and Billroth, Riickert, Olsh., and De Wette. But punishment seems out of place in this verse, which expresses his fear lest he should be humbled for, and have to lament the case of the impenitent,— and then, as he declares ch. xiii. 2, be forced to proceed to discipline ; but this point is not yet introduced. I much prefer therefore taking it as Chrys., p. 635, -τοὺς μὴ μετανοοῦντας πενθεῖ, τοὺς τὰ ἀνίατα νοσοῦντας, τοὺς ἐν τῷ τραύματι μένοντας. ἐννόησον τοίνυν ἀποστολικὴν ἀρετήν, ὅταν μηδὲν ἑαυτῷ συνειδὼς πο- wnpdv, ὑπὲρ ἀλλοτρίων θρηνῇ κακῶν, καὶ ech. xiii. 2 only t. f = 1 Cor. xiv. 16. , ean) pany Oe 7 ef ἐπὶ τῇ 8 ἀκαθ " } THKOT@MV και μὴ μετανοήησαντων “᾿ ἔπι TI) ° AKA apola Και depp., here only. Acts ii. 38 reff. g Rom. i. 24 reff. om 3rd καὶ D}(and lat) goth Tert,.] ὑπὲρ τῶν ἑτέροις πλημμελημένων ταπει- νῶται. τοῦτο γὰρ μάλιστα τοῦ διδασκά- λου, τὸ οὕτω συναλγεῖν ταῖς τῶν μαθητῶν συμφοραῖς, τὸ κόπτεσθαι καὶ πενθεῖν ἐπὶ τοῖς τραύμασι τῶν ἀρχομένων. Similarly Calvin : ‘veri et germani Pastoris affectum nobis exprimit, qaum luctu aliorum pec- cata se prosequuturum dicit. Et sane ita agendum est, ut suam quisque Pastor Ec- clesiam animo inclusam gestet, ejus morbis perinde ac suis afficiatur, miseriis condoles- cat, peccato lugeat.’ So Estius, but per- haps too minutely fixing the meaning of πενθεῖν to mourning them as “ Deo mor- tuos:” and Calovius (Meyer): ‘non de pena hic Corinthiorum impeeritentium, sed de merore suo super impcenitentia :” and so likewise Meyer. πολλ. τ. προημ. Why πολλούς Why ποῦ αἰ 7 I bélieve he uses πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων as ἃ mild expression for τοὺς πολλοὺς τοὺς προημαρτηκότας, and that we must not therefore press too closely the enquiry as to what the genus of rponu. is, of which the πολλοί are the species. Liicke (as above) cited by Meyer, explains—“ Cogitavit rem ita, ut primum poneret Christianorum ex ethnicis potissimum τῶν mponu. k. μὴ μετα- vonodvTwy genus universum, cujus generis homines essent ubique ecclesiarum, deinde vero ex isto hominum genere multos eos qui Corinthi essent, designaret definiret- que.” But this seems travelling quite out of the way. Meyer explains the genus to be all the sinners spoken of in ver. 20, the species (πολλούς) those designated by ἀκαθαρσ., πορν., and ἄσελγ. But this again is unnatural; and does not accu- rately fit ver. 20, in which not so much the mponuaptnueva as the present state at the Apostle’s coming, is the subject. The distinction between the two participles, προημ. and μετανοησάντων, should be ob- served. As Meyer well remarks, the perf. προημαρτηκότων denotes the permanence of the state from the time of the committal of the sin: whereas the aor. μετανοησάντων has the sense of the ‘ futurum exactum,’ --fand who at my coming shall not have repented.” To what does mpo- refer? to the time before their conversion? Hardly so: for the sins, of the incestuous person 1 Cor. v., and of these also, which would give the Apostle such pain, must be con- ceived to have been committed in their Christian state: being in fact those against which we find such repeated cautions in 1, 2. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 719 h / ΤΣ: / ke 1 Im , πορνείᾳ καὶ 1 ἀσελγείᾳ ἢ ἡ ἔπραξαν. XIII. Τρίτον 51 Cor. v1 πὶ τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. a / nw ta «al τριῶν 5 σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα. 11 Cor. xii. 28 reff. n Matt. xviii. 16. p Matt. xxiv. 251, Mk. ch. vii. 3 al.t. 2 Macc. iii. 28 al. k attr., Acts i. 1 reff. 28,32. Judg. xvi. 15. ol.c. A Ald. compl. Rom. xiv. 4. "éml στύματος δύο μαρτύρων ᾿ Mark vil. 22. Rom, xiii. 13. 2p / . ΦΈΡΟΝ TT PO€lLpynKa KQt alt Wisd. ᾿Ξ xiv. 26 only. τὴ (ch. xii, 14.) John xxi. 14. Num. xxii. 1 Tim. v.19. Deru. xix.15. see Heb. χ, 28. Cap. XIII. 1. ins δου bef τριτον (from ch xii. 14) AN? ἃ Ὁ ο ἃ ἔο 17 vulg eth Damasc Pel Aug, Bede. [F-lat arm(Tischdf’)]} Dial,. for ἐρχομαι, ετοιμως exw ελθειν (from ch xii. 14) A Syr. ins wa bef em: &! 35 G-lat syrr [arm(Tischdf) ]. for και; ἡ XN 32. 46 vulg 2. [aft προειρ. ins] yap D! ο 43, 113-marg [demid] Ambrst Pel Sedul Bede. 1 Cor.,e.g. ch.v.11; vi. 15, 18; x. 8; xv. 33, 34. 1 would therefore understand the προ- indefinitely, almost pleonastically—point- ing to the priority of sin implied in the idea of repentance. petav. ἔπί} Meyer would join together mwevOqnow... ἐπί, and indi- cates this as the natural connexion of verb, object, and ground. But to say nothing of the harshness of πενθήσω πολλοὺς ἐπί, and the almost necessarily reflective form of μετανοησ. ἐπὶ THK... . ἣ Empatav,—I con- ceive the aorist ἔπραξαν to be fatal to this arrasgement. Thus taken, it would make the Apostle lament over these impenitents, on account of the impurity, &¢., which they émpatay—i.e. once practised, but which is now gone by. The sense would require πεπράχασι. Whereas if connected with μετανοησάντων, the aorist expresses ‘and shall not have (repented of the ἀκ., &e., which they practised),’ and would thus come rightly atter peravonc., implying the re- moval of the former state of sin. μεταν. is usually constructed with ἀπό, Acts viii. 22 (Heb. vi. 1), or ἐκ, Rev. only,—ii. 21 f.; ix. 20 f.; xvi. 11: but as Paul only uses the word this once, and as the construction with ἐπί is perfectly legitimate and highly expressive (see reff. LXX), there can be no objection to it here. Cuap. XIII. 1— 10.) He warns them of the severity which 2 his arrival, if such be the case, he will surely exercise, and prove his apostolic authority. Tothis proof, however, he ex- horts them not to put him. 1.) This third time I am coming to you: i.e. ‘this is the third visit, which I am now about to pay you.’ Had not chronological theories intervened, no one would ever have thought of any other rendering. The usual one, ‘This is the third time that I have been intending to come to you,’ introduces here, as also in ch. xii. 14, an element not only foreign to, but detrimental to, the purpose. The Apostle wishes to impress on them the certainty of this coming, and to prepare them for it by solemn self-examina- tion; and in order to this, he (on this interpretation) uses an expression which would only remind them of the charge of ἐλαφρία which had been brought against him, and tend to diminish the solemnity of the warning. Asanother chronological re- fuge, Beza, al., suppose his two Epistles to be meant by the two former ‘ profectiones ad illos’ In answer to all attempts τὸ give here any but the obvious sense, we may safely maintain that had any other been meant, we should certainly have had more indication of it, than -we have now. On τρίτον τοῦτο, Meyer compares Herod. v. 76, τέταρτον δὴ τοῦτο .. .. ἀπικόμενοι : see also reff.: and on Paul’s visit to Co- rinth, the Prolegomena to 1 Cor. § v. ἐπὶ στόμ..] i.e. “1 will not now, as before, be with you ἐν πάσῃ ὕπομονῇ as regards the offenders: but will come to a regular process, and establish the truth in a legal manner,’ see reff. This explanation, however, has not been the usual one: Chrys., Calvin, Estius, al., and recently Neander and Olsh. and Stanley, under- standing the two or three witnesses, of Paul’s two or three visits, as establishing, either (1) the truth of the facts, or (2) the reality of his threats: so Chrys., Hom. xxix. p.639 f.: ἅπαξ εἶπον κ. δεύτερον, ὅτε παρεγενόμην" λέγω καὶ νῦν διὰ γραμμάτων. καὶ μὴν ἐὰν ἀκούσητέ μου (al. ἐὰν μὲν ἀκούσητε), ὅπερ ἐπεθύμουν γέγονεν. ἐὰν δὲ παρακούσητε, ἀνάγκη λοιπὸν στῆσαι τὰ εἰρημένα, καὶ ἐπαγαγεῖν τὴν τιμωρίαν, —and Theophyl., πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀπειλητικὸν κατασταθήσεται. Butitis decisive against the whole interpretation,as Meyer remarks, that thus the sins committed since the Apostle’s last visit would remain altoge- ther unnoticed. Another view, connected with the rendering of ἔρχομαι “ am intend- ing to come,’ is given by Wetstein: “ Spero jam denique mihi successurum, ut vobis demonstrem, serio me desiderasse ad vos venire: sicut ea que trium hominum tes- timonio probantur, in judicio fidem fa-. ciunt.” Similarly Grotius and Le Clerc. But it is fatal to this, that according to it, the δύο μάρτυρες had failed to establish it. kal τρ., not for ἢ Tp..—two (where only two can be had), and three (where so muny can be obtained): ‘two and three respectively.’ μαρτύρων, the dual number not occurring in the N, T. 211 790 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS. B. XIII. ; Ὰ q XE : ς Τ \ 3 \ 86 / Bees A “ - «61.5.9... ἃ προλέγω, ὡς ᾿ παρὼν ὃ τὸ * δεύτερον καὶ * ἀπὼν νῦν, τοῖς ABDF 1 Thess. i. only 5 t A x Ἂ ed μεν er 2\ ΣΙ. LPRa ‘only. Is. Ἐπσγρρημαρτηκόσιν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, OTL ἐὰν ἔλθω cdef Cor. ¥. ¢ > \ / > , / rs 5 \ \ Qr a a's ἀξ ῤςς τὸ ἢ πάλιν οὐ " φείσομαι" > ἐπεὶ ¥ δοκιμὴν * ζητεῖτε τοῦ 617. 47 s Jude 5. (Gen. a a ἃ > Cc ..a. > > a azn). ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος χριστοῦ, ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ " ἀσθενεῖ, nly τ. as e's \ A 5 ΄ MR eo. beh : ἀλλὰ * δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. * καὶ yap ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ὃ ἀσθε- see Lidd. an Acts xx. 29. Ezek. xxxvi. 21. v = 2 Pet. ii. 4, 5. : z Rom. xiv. 4. ch, ix. 8 only t y = Rom. viii. 3. w Rom. v. 4 reff. a1Cor. ii. 3 reff. ἐσ ty Scott, sub εἰς, ll. 2. x = 1 Gor. iv. 2. om ws D!(and lat) syr arm. rec aft νυν ins ypapw, with D3[-gr] KLP rel syrr goth arm Chr, Thdrt Damase Ambrst ; λέγω copt wth-pl: om ABD! FR 17 latt eth-rom [ Euthal-ms | Aug, Sedul Bede. om εἰς τὸ F arm. 8. for eres, ots F Ambr, Augaiic: εἰ Orig, Mac, [Cyr-p,] Thdrt,: #4 Orig, Dial [Cyr-p,] Thdrt,: aa [vulg F-lat] Orig-int, [Augsepe: quia D-lat Aug,: quia aut quoniam G-lat: quoniam Ambr,|: quid Ambr,: quomodo Ambrst: for ἐπεὶ doximny, er οικοδομην 93. λαλουντος bef ev ἐεμοι ΕἾ ποῦ F-lat]. 4. rec aft Ist καὶ yap ins εἰ (see notes), with A D3[-gr] LX rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr goth [arm] Chrj(«a: yap nu. εἰ Chr-ms) Thdrt,;, Gc Orig-int; Ps-Ath-int, [Hil,]: om B D}{and lat | FK[PJ8' 1) 17 copt eth Eus, [Cyr-p, Euthal-ms] Damase ΤῺ] Paulin. have fcrewarned you, and I now fore- Warn you, as (I did, προείρηκα) when present the second time, so also (I do) now (προλέγω) when absent. It cer- tainly seems to me that this is the only natural way of taking the words. Grot., Est., Bengel, al., and De Wette, take os παρὼν τὸ δεύτ. to mean, ‘as if I were present the second time, meaning this next time. But is it possible that the Apostle should have written so confusedly, as to have said in the same sentence τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι, and ὡς παρὼν Td δεύτερον, both, according to these interpreters, with reference to the same journey? And would he not have even on such an hypothesis have said τὸ δεύτερον τοῦτοῦ But if we render as above, the προεΐρηκα (perf. because the warning yet endured in force) refers to his second visit (παρὼν τὸ δεύτ.), and the προλέγω to his present condition of absence (ἀπὼν viv), ὡς being as (“1 did’ or ‘do,’ for it applies to both clauses), and καί the simple copula. τοῖς προημ.} the same persons as are thus de- signated above, ch. xii. 21. It is not ne- cessary to fix the προ- any more accurately. τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν] all the rest of you, who may not have actually sinned, but still require warning, on account of your own personal danger, connexion with the προημαρτηκότες, Ke. ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς TO 7. | At My next coming. ‘This was what he προείρηκεν when he was last there, and now προλέγει: 8.1 ἐπεί gives the reason why he will not spare: they re- quired the exertion of discipline ; and they challenged him to the proof of his apos- tolic authority. δοκιμὴν... χριστοῦ] The genitive is either objective, a proof of Christ speaking in me, i.e. ‘that ( urist speaks in me,’—or subjective, a proof given by Christ speaking in me—‘a token of my authority vouchsafed by Christ speaking in me.’ This latter meaning is more suited to what follows, where Christ becomes the subject. Such proof would be, the immediate execution, by divine power, of some punishment denounced by Paul’s word, as in Acts xiii. 11. ὅς, 1. 6. Christ : see above. δυνατεῖ, to answer to ἀσθενεῖ, refers both to gifts and mira- cles, and to the Power of Christ which He would exert in punishment—eis ὑμᾶς and ev ὑμῖν differ—the eis being hypothetical, —the ἐν, matter of fact. The assertion tends to remind them of the danger of provoking Christ, who spoke by Paul. 4.) Confirmation of the fore- going οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ, ἀλλὰ δυνατεῖ. The rec. text, καὶ γὰρ εἰ, would be quite beside the purpose, and would mean, ‘Yor even if He were crucified, ‘for even putting the case that He was crucified :’ καὶ εἰ cannot be = εἰ καί, though, as in Vulg. “ etsi,’— and E. V. Hartung, Partikellehre i. 139, shews that in καὶ εἰ, the climax belongs only to the hypothetical particle εἰ, not as in ef καί, to the fact presupposed : ‘even if, not ‘if even,’ or ‘ although.’ Examples of καὶ εἰ are Plato, Sympos. 185, καὶ ἐὰν τοῦτο ποιήσῃς ἅπαξ ἢ δίς, καὶ εἰ πάνυ ἰσχυρά ἐστι, παύσεται. Eur. Androm. 266, καὶ γὰρ εἰ πέριξ σ᾽ ἔχει τηκτὸς μόλυβδος, ἐξαναστήσω σ᾽ ἐγώ. Sappho, καὶ γὰρ αἱ φεύγει, ταχέως διώξει. See more in Hartung, l. ο. For he was even crucified (that καὶ γάρ always means ‘for... €0Ch” . . 5 OF Jone and never simply ‘for,’ see Hartung, i. 137 f., where he has collected many ex- amples, e.g.: Il. a. 63, καὶ γάρ τ᾽ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός éeoriv,—Herod. i. 77, καὶ yap πρὸς τούτους αὐτῷ ἐπεποίητο συμμαχίην from (as the source,—the conditional element,— by which His crucifixion became possible) 3—7. / VELAS, ΠΡΟΣ KOPIN@IOYTS B. barra ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ" 721 Ν A e a i Kat Bai dee a - ot Lor. iv. © ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἀνχλὰ 4 ζήσομεν σὺν αὐτῷ ἐκ a = © δυνάμεως “ θεοῦ [εἰς ὑμᾶς]. “Ὁ ΄ ἐστὲ " ἐν τῇ ἢ πίστει, " εἰ π μή ἃ τι 5 ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε. fe ye if ] ἑαυτοὺς ἱ δοκιμάζετε" * ἢ οὐκ | ἐπι- ,ὔ f € 4 “ Ἶ “ \ = Πα » ς ΄“ ᾽ 3 γινώσκετε ' ἑαυτούς, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς χριστὸς ™ ἐν ὑμῖν [ἐστιν ; ὅ 5 { ἑαυτοὺς 8 πειράζετε εἰ el Gor, i. 18 f 2nd pers., πον vii. 11 reff. = Rey. ii. 2. 11; 10; ΕΣ xxv. 2. see 2 ς ΄ “ 6 ἐλπτίζω δὲ ὅτι γνώσεσθε ὅτι, Heb. xi. 17. 1 Cor. xvi. 13, ε a ᾽ 5) \ 70. " 5. ΟὟ 1 Cor. iii ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμὲν 5 ἀδόκιμοι. 7 Ῥὰ εὐχόμεθα δὲ 4 πρὸς τὸν 13 reff or. Vi. 2, 95.16; 19, l constr., 1 Cor. xiv. 37 reff. m 1 Cor. xiv. 25. n Luke ix. 13. 10 or. vii. 5 only. o Rom. i. 28 reff. p Acts xxvii. 29 reff. q here only. Num, xi. 2. om 2nd yap F[-gr] 112 [Syr] arm. [612] ins xa bef ἡμεῖς (appy, as Meyer, the και yap was taken as merely = namque, and thus another και added to give the emphasis), withf g copt Chr, : [εἰ K tol:] txt ABD F[-gr(and G-lat) ] L[P]& rel latt syrr goth{mss vary] Cyr[-p, Euthal-ms] Thdrt Damase ΤῺ] Cc lat-ff. for ev, συν AF Syr copt goth. εν D}(and lat) 17 Chr. (mss vary). (so also D}-gr [simly G-lat]): rec ζησομεθα, with DKL rel Chr, Thdrt: txt ABD! 17 Damasc[, -σωμεν F Euthal-ms |.—om αλλα (no. συν avtw P. for συν, om ex δυναμεως θεου F[not F-lat]: om θεου K. om es ὑμας BD§ flor arm Chr, Sedul : in vobis joined with follg zpsis in D-lat ins ADIFKL[P]§ rel (bef εἰς δυναμ. θῦ g: ἡμας c d) [latt syrr copt goth Cyr-p, Euthal-ms Thdrt Damasc]. 5. om eavtous δοκιμαζετε A, om ἢ N!: ει Po. xpioros bef tnoovs AFPR vulg copt arm Clem, [Euthal-ms] Damase Ambrst Bede: txt BDKL rel [tol] syrr goth Thdrt Jer,. om ἐστιν B D1[-gr] 17 2th Clem Chr-comm,: ins ΑΘ ΕΚ LPR rel latt goth arm [Chr-txt, Euthal-ms] Thdrt. 6. for δε, yap F[-gr(om F- lat : marked for erasure by X!.) G-lat has both]. (aft ἡμεῖς € is written but 7. rec evxouat (conformation to ελπιζω, ver 6 ?), with D3[-gr] KL rel Syr goth Chr, Thdrt Ambrst Cassiod, Damasce Aug). weakness, yet He lives by (source [of His life ]) the Power of God (which raised Him from the dead, Rom. vi. 4; viii. 11; Eph. i. 20; Phil. ii.9). For we also are weak in Him (i.e. in Him, in our communion with and imitation of Christ, we, as He did, lay aside our power and spare you: we partake of His voluntary abnegation of power which we might have used. The context requires this explanation, and refutes that of Chrys., p. 644, τί ἐστιν, acd. ἐν αὐτῷ ; Siwkducba, ἐλαυνόμεθα, τὰ ἔσχατα πάσχομεν,50 Theodoret, Theophyl., Grot., Estius, al.), but shall live (exercise our apostolic authority, in contrast to the ἀσθένεια above) with Him (as He now exercises His power in His glorified resur- rection life) from (source) the power of God [with respect to you (εἰς ὑμᾶς, if genuine, may belong either to δυνάμεως θεοῦ, = δυνάμ. θεοῦ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς, the art. being often omitted in such constructions, —or to ζήσομεν, ‘we shall live with re- spect to you, which agrees better with the parallelism, but not so well with the arrangement of the sentence. The sense seems to require the latter interpretation, for the δύναμις θεοῦ εἰς bp. would be rather the result, than the source of the apostolic energy indicated by ζήσομεν)].. I have taken ζήσομεν, as the context plainly requires, figuratively (see ref.): but many Vou. 11. : txt ABD'FPX m 17 latt syr copt eth arm [Euthal-ms] Isid, Commentators take it literally, of the resurrection: e.g. Grot.—‘vitam conse- quemur immortalem.’ 8: “ou want to prove Christ speaking in me ;—if you necessitate this proof, it will be given. But I will tell you whom rather to prove. Prove YOURSELVES; there let your atten- tion be concentrated, if you will apply tests.’ Notice the prominently emphatic ἑαυτούς : so Chrys., ib.: τί yap λέγω περὶ ἐμοῦ τοῦ διδασκάλου, φησί... . ὑμᾶς γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐὰν βουλήθητε ἐξετάσαι .. ὄψεσθε ὅτι καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ χριστός. εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ π.1] ‘Whether you main- tain your Christian place and standing in Christ, which will be shewn by the power of Christ’s Spirit present and ener- gizing among you.’ ἐπιγιν. ἕαυτ., ὅτι} for the construction see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 5. 1. a. εἰ μή τι, unless indeed... . see reff. ἀδόκιμοι, ‘not abiding the proof,’ worth- less,—i.e. in this case, ‘mere pretended Christians.’ 6.] But (however it may fall out with your proof of your- selves) I hope (or perhaps better, expect) that ye shall know that we are not worthless (unable to abide the proof to wich you put us. The verse is said, as Theodoret, ἀπειλητικῶς ;—and Chrys. remarks, ib., ἐπειδὴ yap ἐντεῦθεν βούλεσθε, φησί, διὰ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς κολάσεως THY 3A 7° 9 \ Ἁ -» « - \ ’ , ied ΄ “ ΄ τ Rom. xiv. 18 θεὸν μὴ ποιῆσαι ὑμᾶς κακὸν μηδέν, οὐχ ἵνα ἡμεῖς " δόκι- ABDFK “- , ’ “ [ὦ - \ s \ "»“" « -“ Ἀ μοι φανῶμεν, ἀλλ᾽ Wa ὑμεῖς TO ὅ καλὸν ποιῆτε, ἡμεῖς δὲ reff. s — Rom. vil. 18, 21 reff. t constr., Mark ix. 22. Luke 2. ὡς ° ἀδόκιμοι ὦμεν. xil. 2 ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. XIII. Sov yap 'δυνάμεθά τι κατὰ τῆς 9 χαίρομεν γὰρ 10 διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα καταρτίζεσθε, “ παρα- - . κ \ “ Ε] / Ἢ ellips,1 Cor. ἀλῃθείας, ἃ ἀλλὰ ὑπὲρ THs ἀληθείας. Υ - εἰν πὶ: 21. o ε Am wd θ a ς - δὲ ὃ \ ¢ a Ν wpomvece ch. ὅταν ἡμεῖς " ἀσθενῶμεν, ὑμεῖς δὲ δυνατοὶ tre τοῦτο καὶ xi. rem, , Ἢ ε - , _indnote ΟΡ εὐχόμεθα, τὴν “ ὑμῶν * κατάρτισιν. (-τίζειν, τ ἀπὼν id Ὁ“ y a \ ‘ Ζ > , a ΄ som γράφω, wa ᾽ παρὼν μὴ “ ἀποτόμως * χρήσωμαι = ἧς, \ \ / a « 7, ’ > ᾽ nei) κατὰ τὴν ὃ ἐξουσίαν ἣν ὁ κύριος ὃ ἔδωκέν μοι εἰς " οἰκοδο- y ver. 2. \ \ ᾽ aan re z Tit. 1.13 . as wis μὴν καὶ οὐκ εἰς " καθαίρεσιν ᾿ ‘ v. 22 only. c aie nim, ἢ ὁ Λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, χαίρετε, xi. 22.) a constr., Esth. i. 19. ix. 27. iv. 1. 2 Tim, iv. 8. (Acts xxvii. 3.) d for ovx wa, wa un KL [ut non D-iat]. ποιειτε ΚΙ δὝὲ ἃ [ Euthal-ms ]. 8. om της (twice) F. 9. om yap D3K 46. 108!-16 arm. b ch. x. 8 reff. = 1 Cor. i. 10 reff. see above (x). (aAAa, so DIFN. c 1 Cor. i. 16. iv. 2. 1 Thess. e = ch. i. 4 ἄς. reff. for υμ., ἡμεις N1(txt N-corr!(?)*) [m(Treg) ]. (homeeotel in ἃ 17 [47].)) ote F, rec ins δὲ bef kat, with D‘{-gr] KLN$ rel Syr [Chr,] Thdrt: om ABD!FPN! 17 latt copt 2th arm Damasc [ Euthal-ms Ambrst']. 10. μη bef παρων DF c 47 latt: μη π. μὴ m. χρήσομαι DFP ς ἃ k! 47. ree ἐδωκε μοι bef ὁ κυριος, with KL rel syrr eth arm Chr, Thdrt Thl (Ες : txt ABDFPR a? m 17 latt copt goth Damasc [ Euthal-ms Ambrst ]. 11. ins to bef λοιπ. D? f [Chr, Thl]: add ovy P. [Syr]. δοκιμὴν λαβεῖν, οὐκ ἀπορήσομεν τοῦ δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν). 1} Yet he prays God rather that they ma require no such demonstration of his apos- tolic power, even though he lose in reputa- tion by it. μὴ ποιῆσ. vp. Kak. pnd. | Not, as Grot., al., ‘that I may not have to inflict on you any evil’ (an extraordinary rendering of κακὸν ποιεῖν), but that ye may do no evil, corresponding to tva ὑμεῖς τὸ καλὸν ποιῆτε below. οὐχ iva ....] ‘And the purpose of this my prayer is not to gain any repute by your Christian graces, but that you may be highly endowed with them, and (if it so happen) we may be as of no repute (‘ho- minum scilicet judicio,’ Beza).’ That this is the sense, and that δόκιμοι is not in this verse to be applied to substantiation of power by punishment, is necessitated by the construction,—it being plainly shewn by the infin. after εὐχόμ., that ἵνα is not here meant to apply, even in part, to the purport of the prayer (as in Col. 1. 9; 2 Thess. i. 11; see note on 1 Cor. xiv. 13), but to its purpose. And that being settled,— we pray .... not in order that we may appear Sdéxipor,—it follows that the appearing δόκιμοι would be a result of the fulfilment of the prayer, viz. of your doing no evil, and this it could only be by their doing no evil bringing credit on the Apostle’s ministry. It is not for this end that we pray that you may do no evil, but For your own good, even if that tend to χαιρεσθε P. add και L the non-exercise, and so depreciation, of our apostolic power. 8.] For we have no power against the truth (of the Gospel, as Meyer; not of the facts, as Chrys., al., and De Wette, which might suit κατὰ τῆς GA., but comes in very lamely with ὑπὲρ τῆς aA.—‘ If you walk in the truth, we shall be at one with you and so have no opportunity of shewing our power’) but (only) on behalf of (in further- ance of the cause and spread of) the truth. 9.1 For (confirmation of ver. 8 by the still stronger assertion, WHEREIN his joy consists, and for what he prays) our joy is, when we are weak (have no opportunity for shewing our power in punishment) but ye are mighty (in Christian graces, and requiring no exer- cise of our authority): this (viz. that the state of the case may be as just mentioned) we also pray for, viz. your perfection (generally,—in all good things, see καταρ- τισμόν, Eph. iv. 12: not, as Bengel, ‘ne opus sit quenquam de corpore rescindere ;” the reference here being far more general). 10.] διὰ τοῦτο, ‘because I wish and pray for your perfection” ταῦτα, ‘this Epistle’ ἀποτ., sharply. χρήσ., scil. ὑμῖν, See in reff. similar omissions of the dative. βούλομαι yap ἐν τοῖς γράμμασι κεῖσθαι τὴν ἀποτομίαν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι. Chrys., Hom. xxx. p. 649. κατὰ τ. ἐξ. Hv....] gives the reason why he did not wish to act a7toTauws,—because the power would seem to be exercised in LPR abil cdef ge 0 17. 47 8—13. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. 723 Lal “ » es ¢ καλεῖσθε, to αὐτὸ ® φρονεῖτε, ὃ εἰρηνεύετε, καὶ 1) ὁ θεὸς «ποι. xi. 1. xv. 0. ll. 12 k a i , / \ j ’ ” θ᾽ ς A 5 , ait Oe τῆς ‘ayaTns Kat / εἰρηνης ἐσται μεῦ υμων. ἀσπά- 1.3. ἵν. 2. ᾿Ξ / σασθε ἀλλήλους * ἐν ἁγίῳ * φιλήματι. οἱ | ἅγιοι πάντες. g Rom. viii. 5 » / Oy τὰ reff. ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς h Mark ix. 50. Rom. xii. 18. 13 only. 2 Chron. xiv. 13 Ἥ 4 A / Ἵ A A Ἁ ¢ m ᾽ / i χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ τ ἀγάπη ἔπ δ aA a a ΄, i here only. τοῦ τι θεοῦ καὶ ἡ " κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μετὰ / “ πάντων ὑμῶν. j Rom. xv. 33. k Rom. xvi. 16 (reff.). 1 = Acts ix. 13 reff. Rom. i. 8}. fh. m Rom. v. 5. ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOTS B. Vili. 39. n=1Cor.i.9. Phil. ii. 1 al. om To αὐτο φρονειτε A. transp espyyns and αγαπης DL τῇ vulg(with fuld, agst am [demid] tol [F-lat]) goth arm Thdrt Thl Ambrst Pel: om ayamns και F[-gr(and G-lat) | 17 veth-rom.—aft last καὶ ins της DLadfhkm. 12. φιληματι bef ayiw AFL eg mn vulg Chr, Thl [Euthal-ms Ambrst], φιληματι ayarns f: txt BDKPR rel Thdrt Damase Cc. 13. om χριστου B k? [ Cyr, J. om vuwy P. rec at end ins αμην, with DKPN3 rel vulg syrr copt goth arm-zoh [Chr, Damasec] Thdrt Ambrst : om ABFL[? δ} 17 harl! [spec arm-usc] th Chr-mss [Euthal-ms]. SUBSCRIPTION, rec προς kop. Sevtepa ἐγραφὴ ato φιλιππων THs μακεδονιας δια τιτου k. λουκα, with Καὶ Syr copt Thdrt-ed Cc, and omg της waxed. 1, ἃ ἔξ ἢ 47: mp. Kop. 8’ eypapn απο φιλιππων ΒΖ (d), and (adding στίχων pn) P: εγραφη απὸ φιλιππων δια τιτου kK. λουκα Ὁ Κὶ mo: πρ. κορ. β. eyp. απο. φιλ.. δια Titov βαρναβα κ. λουκα h 44. 106-8-33: om 1: προς Kop. B’ επληρωθη" apxeTat mp. yar. D: ετελεσθὴ mp. Kop. B’ apxeTat mpos γαλ. F: txt AB! 17, and (adding στίχων x:8) &. a direction contrary to that intended by Him who gave it. 11—13.] Con- CLUSION. 11.] General exhorta- tions. ‘‘Severius scripserat Paulus in tractatione; nunc benignius, re tamen ipsa non dimissa.” Bengel. xaip., re- joice, scil. in the Lord, as Phil. iii. 1; iv. 4. So also 1 Thess. v. 16. KaTapT., τέλειοι γίνεσθε καὶ ἀναπληροῦτε τὰ λείποντα, Chrys., ἴθ. : amend “ your- selves,” Stanley. mapakal., take comfort; a recurrence in the end of the Epistle to the spirit with which it began ; see ch. i. 6, 7, and, for the need they had of comfort, ch. vii. 8—13. This is better than ‘comfort (or ‘exhort’) one another,’ which would more naturally be expressed by παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους, or ἑαυτούς, see 1 Thess. iv. 18; v.11; Heb. iii. 13; also Heb. x. 25 and note. τὸ αὐτὸ dp. belongs to ἀγάπη, εἰρηνεύετε to εἰ- ρήνη. καί, ‘and then.’ 12.] Concluding greetings. ἐν ay. oud. | See on Rom. xvi. 16. ot ay. πάντες] viz. in the place whence the Epistle was written. 13.] Concluding benedic- _ tion; remarkable for the distinct recog- . hition of the Three Persons in the Holy Trinity, and thence adopted by the Chris- tian Church in all ages as the final blessing in her Services. The grace of END OF our Lord Jesus Christ is put first; “nam per gratiam Christi venitur ad Patris amo- rem.” Bengel. κοινων. τ. Gy. av, | communion,—fellowship, gen. obj.— not ‘communicatio activa, gen. subj.— τουτέστι THY μετοχὴν αὐτοῦ K. THY μετά- ληψιν, καθ᾽ ἣν ἁγιαζόμεθα, τῇ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐπιφοιτήσει τοῦ παρακλήτου κοινωνοὶ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι, καὶ πνεῦμα καὶ αὐτοί, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ, ἀλλὰ μεθέξει, ὄντες, Theophyl., and simi- larly eum. Chrys. adds, p. 652, οὕτω τὰ τῆ" τριάδος ἀδιαίρετα' καὶ ov τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἡ κοινωνία, εὑρέθη τοῦ υἱοῦ" καὶ οὗ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστιν ἣ χάρις, καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς κ. τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν] “And this blessing he invokes, not on a few individuals, or on any one section of the Corinthian Church, but ex- pressly on every portion and every indi- vidual of those with whom, throughout these two Epistles, he had so earnestly and so variously argued and contended. Asin the first, so in the second Epistle, but still more emphatically, as being here his very last words, his prayer was, that this happi- ness might be ‘ with them all’ (μετὰ πάν- των ὑμῶν). Stanley. Compare, for the same emphatic πᾶς, Rom. i. 5, 8; iv. 16; [xvi. 24,] ἄς. : and for πᾶς following its substantive and unemphatic, ib. viii. 32, 32; 1 Cor. vii. 17; x. 1, &c. VOL. It. 4 γώ is . i 7 a Ἣν» ayeay ἢ Ἶ ky Ἢ ῳ n τι ΓΝ ΕΟ, ΟΥ̓ ew (oe uel aD ε ἂν ἊΝ ol ‘ Ε 4 . : ἵ j “ὠς e ii i δ᾿ ‘ « - t ι ἀξη 1 ΔΎ ΝΜ J : in 5 ᾿ PRINTED BY Pet srorniswooDs AND CO., NEW-STREET bens ων dale oy Pelt ser ΤᾺ) steal Σ᾽ ΟΘΝΌΟΣ y: "εν abe - teeta’. fit 4 ts “2t) te avd Py Owe! OA « Σ οἷ : eo r ee ee “, ΐ ' ' » th ‘ ‘ ‘ «Ὁ: rei se -¥% “a> » ; : ί ih δι. ; το ᾿ τὰ = eee <= ti. ; wae Ay am th ee, buy at ; ys Davia a 27, a wel. Ὁ Ai ; ‘ “νι. ADMeQw De ES SS ee ees 4. οὐ 34 fue 9S oie it oe, Stk 9x1 hyn a “rie a5 FA; sat Phi j in. νυν vee. Sha BRIE ᾧ τ... eee 1. hha aie Se a ee τὰν - i Pee Δ tbe WA, caf γνῶ << wad arid : 00 oe Gy ori il ἀν. de é a Pid Botan!) paddy ied) ad ΤΣ 7 ἊΝ iv: ἀρι γεν», ἄγονα, neg πολ ame sie carb Yo Soh ἦρι μὰ Hind ek patsy k tele ὧὐ Asters Giotubnitt why ἃ μὰ εὐενΐ " ΠΝ Cae MR ak <9 ΡΥ ΩΝ a ote sa tag phic mt . - Ay . ihe ',t 7 "δέ ͵ i > dA Fats 7. Η͂ , ‘ ne heen. { a * Vs ¥ ~) Aas is = Aisi ἣν Date Due il i